Marking

[TheUltramark]

This is an area where my DMing philosophy is under active development. I read a blog last week that was going through the various defender class pros and cons, and that article LOVED the Battlemind's punishment mechanic and thought it was borderline overpowered. I, on, the other hand, have been running a game where the defender is a Battlemind, and she's NEVER gotten to use her Mind Spike in three levels of play. This is because she can only Mind Spike an adjacent enemy, and if a marked enemy is adjacent to her, it attacks her.

However, I ran the first session of the Dark Legacy of Evard season of D&D Encounters last night, and on several occasions I had the monsters shift while adjacent to the Knight (getting punished) and in one case attack a different PC than the adjacent knight (getting punished - although in this case, the monster succeeded in killing the other PC). I know it was a lot more fun for the Knight to be able to use his punishment mechanics - and the battle was plenty hard even without me playing the monsters "optimally".

In the case of the Battlemind, I think part of the problem is that it's a 4 PC party, which means that it's rare for the Battlemind AND another PC to be adjacent to the same monster (they don't seem to flank much), so the monster either attacks the adjacent Battlemind or MOVES AWAY to attack someone else (provoking an opportunity attack, but not a Mind Spike).

I definitely will look for more opportunities to let my defenders punish monsters for ignoring marks when it makes sense for the monster to do so. More fun for everyone!

Is this an area that WotC has written much about? I don't recall a lengthy discussion of this topic in the DMG, but I think it deserves one.

first, that's a huge factor I think. My party is 7 strong (with 0 npcs) so they do tend to "buddy up" a lot in battle.

I agree that I too would like to see some more thoughts, input, advice on handling marking in general.

For the record, I was using giant centipedes and they "bought the mark" and it basically saved two different pc's who were deep in the hurt locker. If it were the defender and a healthy striker, though, I wonder if I would react differently? Then, it becomes a question am I the dm metagaming ??? it seems like it could be a slippery slope

 

[eamon]

Paladins and Swordmages punishment mechanic is tied into the marking power itself, so monsters know what'll happen as soon as they are marked.

Not quite - a creature knows what a power has done to it. It knows about imposed conditions such as the mark condition - it does not (by RAW) know about effects of the power which don't affect it.

So, it certainly does not automatically know that a swordmage aegis grants the defender extra abilities - those are effects on the defender, not the marked creature. It also certainly would not know about a fighter's combat challenge (barring in-game exceptions).

The paladin's mark isn't quite as clearcut. Certainly, the paladin's mark punishment affects it, and it knows about it if it is affected. However, a paladin's punishment doesn't necessarily kick in at all, so the argument could be made that it knows of the effect (the damage) once it is affected; i.e. at the moment it is damaged, and not before. However, a probably more reasonable interpretation is that the conditional damage is itself an effect applicable to it; the monster thus knows about it.

But in general, affected creatures don't know the effects of powers, they only know the effect the power has on them. Note that this is also a practical distinction; a player (including the DM) needs to know how to resolve an effect on his PC/creature, so making that information explicitly available to the PC/creature avoids a class of metagame headaches. By contrast other effects are just a distraction - sometimes a tactically interesting distraction, but usually not.

E.g. in the case of marks; it is fairly reasonable to assume there's some extra penalty, and the creature doesn't really need to know the details to want to avoid the risk, if possible.

 

[Nullzone]

I try and get inside my monsters' heads when I consider marks. Mindless or instinctive creatures will almost always pursue the marking creature, unless a specific condition comes up that otherwise shifts their focus.

Example: Ghouls with their Bite attack. Significantly more powerful than their MBA, but requires the target be dazed/stunned/immobilized; my reasoning then is that they really want to bite people and feed on them, but they're too slow to do it normally. So they get marked by the Fighter, and claw at him for a bit, when suddenly the Wizard nearby gets dazed. They realize this (undead in particular have some kind of nether-sense about them in my mind, or you could just argue for animalistic instincts of preying on the weak) and pursue the Wizard, despite the mark.

Intelligent creatures, on the other hand, are highly contextual. I try to exploit their best tactically threatening move, even at the expense of a mark penalty or other OAs unless they're surrounded by a lot of powerful melee combatants; if their best tactic would consider the defender as a viable target, then they'll probably hit him if marked to avoid further penalizing themselves.

Not only does this generally telegraph the conditions upon which the nastiest effects are based to the players if they're paying attention (which is my goal), but it really adds to the danger at the table and makes things more interesting for everyone, including/especially the defender and his mark punishment.


With regards to the OP, monsters and PCs alike know if they are marked, but they do not know what happens if they violate that condition. "Marked" is an abstraction meant to signify "I'm the walking tank in your face who is going to bash it in if you don't give me your full attention", so it's not really necessary in the strictest sense. (Caveat: Monster knowledge checks may tell PCs if something happens when they get marked by an NPC).

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think how you play the group of monsters is as important as how you play the ones that get marked. If I've got 7 goblins, you can bet 2 or 3 are going to try to keep the defenders off the rest of their side, so that the rest can go after something squishier. This makes it less of a question of, "Does this monster go after the marker or his primary target," and more a question of, "what are the monsters' tactical plans."

Of course, if those monsters are oozes, they might simply try to overwhelm the first target they can reach, but I find, "focus fire on opponents offense, all the time, as much as possible," tactically effective in the game but ultra boring.

If I'm unsure about a monster, I'll assign odds on a d6 an openly roll. 4 of those 7 goblins went after the wizard, but the defenders intercepted the other three and 1 of the 4. Does that 4th one risk running or not? Quick assign, and roll. This ensures that I don't start biasing the outcome one way or the other, and lets the defenders know that it wasn't a question on the other 6 monsters.

 

[Aulirophile]

Not quite - a creature knows what a power has done to it. It knows about imposed conditions such as the mark condition - it does not (by RAW) know about effects of the power which don't affect it.

So, it certainly does not automatically know that a swordmage aegis grants the defender extra abilities - those are effects on the defender, not the marked creature. It also certainly would not know about a fighter's combat challenge (barring in-game exceptions).

The paladin's mark isn't quite as clearcut. Certainly, the paladin's mark punishment affects it, and it knows about it if it is affected. However, a paladin's punishment doesn't necessarily kick in at all, so the argument could be made that it knows of the effect (the damage) once it is affected; i.e. at the moment it is damaged, and not before. However, a probably more reasonable interpretation is that the conditional damage is itself an effect applicable to it; the monster thus knows about it.

But in general, affected creatures don't know the effects of powers, they only know the effect the power has on them. Note that this is also a practical distinction; a player (including the DM) needs to know how to resolve an effect on his PC/creature, so making that information explicitly available to the PC/creature avoids a class of metagame headaches. By contrast other effects are just a distraction - sometimes a tactically interesting distraction, but usually not.

E.g. in the case of marks; it is fairly reasonable to assume there's some extra penalty, and the creature doesn't really need to know the details to want to avoid the risk, if possible.

You're wrong. Marking by a Swordmage is tied into their punishment mechanic, so... yeah, monsters do know, by RAW. They do not know for Fighters, Battleminds, and Wardens. The RAW is that creatures know the effects and details of all conditions and powers used on them.

 

[Dracorat]

You're wrong. Marking by a Swordmage is tied into their punishment mechanic, so... yeah, monsters do know, by RAW. [...] The RAW is that creatures know the effects and details of all conditions and powers used on them.

They do not know for Fighters, Battleminds, and Wardens.

These two statements seem to be diametrically opposed.

 

[Aulirophile]

Not really. A Conscious Creature affected by a power knows what a power does. Swordmages and Paladins Mark with a Power whose punishment mechanic is part of the power.

Fighters, Battlemind, and Wardens Mark with something unrelated to their punishment mechanic, and because it is not part of the same power, RAW, monsters don't know.

I doubt this disparity is intended, actually, but see title.

 

[Dracorat]

While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place. In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.

That's directly from the source. How much of this would you assume is not a part of "the effects and details of all conditions used upon them"?

What I find curious is that I don't see more debates on "if I'm a fighter and my buddy marks a target adjacent to me, can I use my immediate interrupt when that target attacks my buddy?" since the mark doesn't state "whenever a marked target under the effects of your mark"...

 

[Aulirophile]

That's directly from the source. How much of this would you assume is not a part of "the effects and details of all conditions used upon them"?

What I find curious is that I don't see more debates on "if I'm a fighter and my buddy marks a target adjacent to me, can I use my immediate interrupt when that target attacks my buddy?" since the mark doesn't state "whenever a marked target under the effects of your mark"...

Look up the "Marked" condition. All it does is -2.

You've quoted the Fighter punishment mechanic. Where in there does it say the creature gets Marked? It doesn't: it says it somewhere else, because the Fighter Marking mechanic and his mechanic for punishing the mark are separate, distinct features. Paladins and Swordmages Marking mechanics are not.

Also source is outdated. Combat Challenge, the punishment mechanic, was formated as a power whose trigger is "Marked by you blah blah blah" answering your other question and the marking mechanic itself now says

"In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn’t include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place."

 

[Dracorat]

You've quoted the Fighter punishment mechanic. Where in there does it say the creature gets Marked? It doesn't: it says it somewhere else, because the Fighter Marking mechanic and his mechanic for punishing the mark are separate, distinct features. Paladins and Swordmages Marking mechanics are not.

Actually it says it immediately before the sentence I started at. I could have extended the quote to include that as well if it would have made you feel better.

The "marked" condition I do not disagree with you on. However, the condition is only a part of the ability that placed it.