On Marking ("Why you little . . . ")

[RefinedBean]

I can see where the fighter's mark might concern people.

I just like to keep in mind that this isn't just some guy waving a sword/battle axe in your face and squeaking out something intimidating. This is a Fighter. They have weapons, and they're DEADLY with them.

If an enemy chooses not to focus on this threat, well, there are consequences for that. The distraction of knowing that you're leaving such a high threat to do their business provides the -2 to attack, and you're going to get attacked to boot.

YMMV, however. I can't think of an easy house rule for the fighter's mark to improve it "cinematically" or what-not, but I'm sure other people can. This is ENworld after all!

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I like the idea of Marking, its just that some of them, in some cases, don't make sense. Which is the real problem, I suppose. But I suspect that I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it in play. (Everyone I play with, when I get a chance to play, knows that I'll gripe bitterly about some rules, then play with them anyway. After all, no rules set is perfect!)

 

[Remathilis]

Mind that a fighter's mark is only really effective when he's standing near someone (same with paladin). The fighter who is "marking" is overbearing his opponent, feinting and striking with harassing little blows that remove the foes concentration (-2 attack) and force the foe to "deal" with the nuisance or drop his defenses (opportunity attack) to go after another foe.

Basically, a fighters mark/combat challenge is just the fighter exerting his "presence" over his marked foe in such a way that the foe cannot make a clear attack at another target AND keep his defenses strong against the fighter. Against a less-trained foe (a warlord, for example) he might be able to attack the squishy rogue, but a fighter demands too much of the foe's concentration to do so.

As for a paladins or swordmages mark? "Magic."

 

[The Little Raven]

He is now an AI mob that responds to aggro on command.

So, if taking a penalty to attack someone else means you're an AI mob, then I guess being forced to attack a particular target for up to 10 rounds (aka the kender's "taunt") definitely means you're an AI mob, right?

Dungeons & Dragons: Ripping off MMOs since 1987.

 

[lutecius]

The fighter who is "marking" is overbearing his opponent...
[stuff that has been rehashed over and over but doesn't solve anything]
...a fighter demands too much of the foe's concentration to do so.

If it's about the marked ennemy having to defend himself, i see no reason why marks couldn't stack.

If it's some psychological effect (taunts et al.) I don't see highly trained or high Wis characters being affected without a saving throw.

Still doesn't work for me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So, if taking a penalty to attack someone else means you're an AI mob, then I guess being forced to attack a particular target for up to 10 rounds (aka the kender's "taunt") definitely means you're an AI mob, right?

Dungeons & Dragons: Ripping off MMOs since 1987.

Being at a penalty to hit does not make you an AI mob and I never said that. Attacking something that gave you a made up penalty because it said so is the issue here. If my character is prone, blind, or under the effect of a magical effect that causes a penalty then oh well, suck it up. A penalty that exists because some random scrub says " I mark you pinkachoo" does not constitute a legitimate reason for a penalty.

I wouldn't say the kender's taunt ability is the highlight of game design either. At a minimum though, taunting mechanics should work only on those opponents that can be so emotionally manipulated, who are intelligent enough to understand the taunt, and allow a saving throw to avoid the effects. Taunting an automaton like a stone golem or an unintelligent slime is a bit ridiculous. If getting to use abilities on anything no matter what is the most important aspect of the game to you then its perfectly fine.

Being affected by such abilities for roleplaying reasons as a choice is totally cool. Its a great combat roleplaying tool for characters that are hotheads. It really blows for those characters who are cool headed and more tactically minded. Saying that its good tactics to attack the target that marked you to avoid the penalties is ignoring the fact that the mark penalty was BS in the first place.

 

[Jackelope King]

The fighter's mark is really simple to understand:

The fighter is behaving like a headhunting jerk in Unreal Tournament or Halo.

Have you ever played any sort of multiplayer video game where it's every player for him/herself, but one jerk decides he's going to headhunt someone? Or even a chaos game of Magic: the Gathering? You're playing a rousing game of Unreal Tournament when somebody kills you. Then you respawn and you're running around looking for a new gun and this jerk comes up behind you and kills you again. You can't shake him. Every time you try to get a kill on someone else, this guy is running up behind you and unloading a flak cannon into your back. And this guy is all about headhunting... he's been doing it since the days of Quake. Spies in Team Fortress are fond of this too, as are people playing agro decks in chaos games of Magic or that one guy who just loves buying up all the Development Cards in Settlers of Cattaan so that he can use Soldiers to Bandit you to death. He's the guy playing man defense in basketball: if you try to ignore him to deal with his teammates, he's going to strip you and make you look like a fool.

There's no major reason for the jerk to harass you above everyone else, but he does, and unfortunately for you, he's good at being a jerk. If you ignore him, he'll basically be free to torment you with impunity. If you stay and fight him, you're not able to deal with the rest of the players in the game, and your options will suffer for it.

That, in a nutshell, is what a fighter's mark is. He's picked a monster and decided to be a jerk to him. He's been doing this for years. The poor sucker he's marked is going to get slammed if he tries to ignore the fighter being a headhunting jerk, and if he does devote his attention to dealing with the fighter, he's still fighting a jerk who's in the game to play one-on-one, not play against multiple people, and unless you're willing to play his game on his terms, he's going to punish you for it. Hard.

 

[Staffan]

So a paladin waving a sword at someone from across the room gets to do extra damage? Or is it just that the guy he marks now takes a penalty for not dealing with the the paladin? The first instance makes some sort of sense to me, as long as he's within melee range, but the ranged aspect makes no sense to me. Whatever, if I get more chances to play maybe it'll start to be clearer.

The paladin's Divine Challenge ability is a magic ability. It's basically a curse of sorts that forces the opponent to focus some of its attention on the paladin (hence the -2 on attacks not including the paladin), and brings down divine vengeance (a bit of damage) if he attacks elsewhere.

Plus, the paladin has to either attack the opponent he has marked or end his turn adjacent to it, or the mark goes away.

The swordmage's Arcane Challenge is also magical in nature, and comes in two flavors: assault (teleport to target and attack them), and shielding (block some of the damage to someone else).

The fighter's Combat Challenge is mostly effective in melee (you can give the opponent -2 to hit others at range, but you don't get the "attack me or suffer" thing), and is based on badass combat techniques that penalizes the opponent for not focusing on you.

Other classes can occasionally mark opponents (e.g. the cleric power Healing Strike), but generally not as an at-will thing, and their marks don't carry the special riders the defender classes' marks do.

 

[lutecius]

The fighter's mark is really simple to understand:

The fighter is behaving like a headhunting jerk in Unreal Tournament or Halo.[...] and unless you're willing to play his game on his terms, he's going to punish you for it. Hard.

That still doesn't explain how the fighter's mark works. If it's just him harassing an ennemy, there's absolutely no reason why marks shouldn't stack.
It doesn't make much sense either that strikers, who have a greater threat range and also deal lots of damage, can't do just the same.

 

[Staffan]

It doesn't make much sense either that strikers, who have a greater threat range and also deal lots of damage, can't do just the same.

Because strikers focus on a no-nonsense fighting style that's all about hitting someone where it hurts, while defenders (particularly fighters) are more about distracting foes.