Marking via Dragon's breath

[AntiPaladin]

The player's interpretation is correct, dragonborn can mark exactly as he thinks. As stated numerous times in this thread, it is not terribly overpowered and I personally think it is a cool flavor for a dragonborn fighter. This exact combo was one of the first things that came to mind as I read the PH entries for dragonborn and fighter.

It's fun and cinematic, let it fly.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Maybe it's your opinions that are the problem and not the rules? Divine challenge absolutely encourages you to run away from your enemy and be out of hitting range. There are far worse implications hidden in the 4th edition rules.

No. There are just some types of cheese that I can swallow, and other types which make me want to puke.

And the only reason behind this seems to be because it offends your sensibilities. People are entitled to play the game differently from how you feel it ought to be played, and they would not necessarily be incorrect.

You feel it is cheese. I feel that it is perfectly acceptable. So who is correct now? Get over it already.

Maybe at the point you started stating that what we were saying was cheese? Don't fling poo and pretend you are innocent.

First and only warning guys - don't be snarky with each other. Talk about how you want to rule it and why you want to rule it that way, but doing so without being rude to other people (or inviting rude comments by over using hyperbole yourself).

 

[Plane Sailing]

I am not specifically targeting you in my reply, and sincerely apologize if I have inadvertently offended you. However, there seems to be an interesting trend around here where posters apparently attempt to use "common sense" and "obviously intended to do XXX" to justify passing off their own houserules as RAW.

It isn't a "trend", and be careful where you go with this - one of the quickest way of being booted from the rules forum is to start saying to all and sundry "that's just your houserules, not RAW" or something along those lines.

Part of the purpose of the rules forum is for people to discuss how they are implementing particular rules. "RAW" may be an interesting factor in those discussions but they are not the be-all and end-all of the discussion that some people may want them to be.

If someone wants to talk about how to implement existing rules in accordance with their 'common sense', then this is absolutely the place to do so.

"House Rules" is where people write brand new classes, powers, rules subsystems and so forth.

Thanks

 

[Runestar]

It isn't a "trend", and be careful where you go with this - one of the quickest way of being booted from the rules forum is to start saying to all and sundry "that's just your houserules, not RAW" or something along those lines.

Isn't it? Everywhere I go here, I see posts essentially amounting to "It seems clear that the author's intent was ... " or "It is clear that it was designed to work in some way and not another". The 2 most prevalent examples that come to find is the issue of fighter marking and whether a paladin can "mark and run". The posters have for most part all but out-right admitted that their interpretation is nowhere supported by the current rules, yet they steadfastly stand by their own notions of how those classes ought to be played, and their tone is aggressive enough to suggest that they even expect us to abide by how they choose to run their games.

Part of the purpose of the rules forum is for people to discuss how they are implementing particular rules. "RAW" may be an interesting factor in those discussions but they are not the be-all and end-all of the discussion that some people may want them to be.

Nothing wrong with that. But but is wrong is when an interpretation of the current rules is clearly not to some member's liking (even though it is clearly correct, or in the least, he cannot prove that it is wrong), and he starts throwing some sort of hissy fit about how we are supposedly power-gamers for having chosen to read the rules our way instead of theirs. To me, it just reeks of sour grapes.

For example, lets use the seal of binding + demigod regeneration combination, which as written, basically lets you 1-shot most solos. Easily game-breaking, no one can deny that. You can come up with a 101 different ways of how you may want to go about fixing it (such as revising regeneration to use your con mod instead of con score), but however you go about it, it ultimately remains a houserule, and should be recognized as such, instead of stubbornly claiming that your way is canon or the way it must be run, despite the book clearly showing otherwise!

To use another example, lets say I start a 3e thread inquiring if powerful build would improve my unarmed strike damage. To me, the most straightforward way of replying would be to quote tha FAQ and cite how nothing in the entry of powerful build mentions anything about improving it. However, they could go one step further and add in their own 2 cents about how there would be nothing game-breaking about it, as well as why it may make sense to allow it as a house-rule.

That should be it - end of story. I have gotten the answer I require, and have enough information to make an informed choice about whether I wish to run powerful build as written or houserule otherwise. What I would not like to see are people posting something like "You are bigger. It is obvious that you should do more damage with larger fists! Anyone who disagrees must be a moron, it is as obvious as day!".

If someone wants to talk about how to implement existing rules in accordance with their 'common sense', then this is absolutely the place to do so.

I stress again that it was never the bone of contention.

 

[Staffan]

One is a paragon class ability, the other is clearly an abuse of a loop hole.

One is for a class that doesn't get a benefit from marking other than a -2, the other is from a synergy of abilities which were never meant to work that way and give the character a very powerful benefit.

Those synergies only work if you're in melee with your opponents, and only once per turn as well.

 

[jensun]

Q: Fighters can take Ritual Casting, making them feel like “multiclassing without multiclassing.” Was that intentional?
A: “I’m glad you noticed that.” People can see other ways of multiclassing in addition to the feats. You can have pious Fighter who isn’t necessarily a Cleric. And all of these things play better than they read. For example, one of the characters in his groups is a Fighter that can throw a fireball and mark all of the monsters.

From a record of a panel Mearls was on at Origins at http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/0...hing-you-wanted-to-know-about-fourth-edition/

 

[Henry]

I wouldn't even call it a good tactic, just a stupid one on the part of the fighter. 25 enemies at once who have their attention on one character = dead character. In our last 4e game, the Warforged Fighter ran up to face the evil bugbears and minions threatening the party. Sadly, he is the only defender in the group. In two rounds time (2d12 +7 coupled with 1d12+2 PLUS 5 minion damage in two rounds' time is a LOT of damage) the Fighter is on the ground making death saves. If he weren't a warforged, he'd have been dead before the combat was halfway finished.

If a dragonborn says "come and get it" to a few enemies at once, for one round, that's cool with me. At best, it means he's putting a 1 round curse on a bunch of enemies, even with that feat from Dragon that makes his breath a ranged weapon.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Nothing wrong with that. But but is wrong is when an interpretation of the current rules is clearly not to some member's liking (even though it is clearly correct, or in the least, he cannot prove that it is wrong), and he starts throwing some sort of hissy fit about how we are supposedly power-gamers for having chosen to read the rules our way instead of theirs.

Both extremes are, of course, wrong.

One of the problems one notices is that while the majority of people are interested in discussing issues, and perhaps coming to a decision on the basis of input from a number of people; some people want to take it further and (for some reason) attempt to convince people on a messageboard that they will never play with, that their interpretation (RAW or personal ruling) is the one true way and should be adopted by all and sundry.

That simply doesn't make sense!

Occasionally somebody posts a question and gets a pretty unanimous answer and they don't like it - which also doesn't make sense (as long as everyone is being polite and helpful, of course). Some people see this and as a result re-evaluate their position (which is fine), other people decide that they still are not convinced (which is also fine). Some people become defensive about their position, which isn't so good though.

Regardless, one of the things what we ask people not to do is to say "well, that's a fine house rule" or "you realise that is a house rule", because 9 times out of 10 it is a handy way of dismissing someone, and frankly we don't like policing it just for the 1 time in 10 when it may be completely justified.

That's why we don't let people play the "that's a house rule" card.

Thanks

 

[Runestar]

Regardless, one of the things what we ask people not to do is to say "well, that's a fine house rule" or "you realise that is a house rule", because 9 times out of 10 it is a handy way of dismissing someone, and frankly we don't like policing it just for the 1 time in 10 when it may be completely justified.

That's why we don't let people play the "that's a house rule" card.

Thanks

I don't mean that you use the "it is ultimately just a houserule, however well you articulate your point" card to dismiss any arguments contrary to your initial stand.

How would you handle people who post seemingly for the sake of being contrary? Lets say I ask if my cleric could use sunburst every 5 minutes as a reusable, albeit gradual means of healing my party. I recall one of the replies being that it couldn't be done, since you would not be able to cast it if there were no enemies. Which is not supported by the 4e rules whatsoever. His intention is clear "I don't like it. So I am just going to cook up some inane reason why it wouldn't work, even if the rationale behind it is incorrect!".

What is wrong if I simply were to reply with "Hmm... going by the existing rules, it appears that this would indeed work. However, I am not sure if allowing it as is may be a good idea, as it may potentially unbalance the game if 'insert rationale here'. Thus...." instead? I have no qualms about recognizing apparent flaws in the system, as well as proposing fixes I deem appropriate (and acknowledging them as such).

At least, I see no shame in admitting that my reply is a houserule, rather than insisting that it is "the way the rules were meant to be", with "common sense and intent" as my only defense.

I admit that this is a far cry from the posting culture I am typically accustomed to back at gleemax, where the threads/topics there are more rules-oriented, and replies tend to more black-and-white (in that the replies are usually yes or no). It would appear that I have much to learn in terms of how I approach sensitive issues such as this.

Still, thanks for being so patient with me.

 

[eamon]

To get ontopic:
My vote's for the dragonborn being allowed to mark with his breath weapon. Do you allow a ranged basic attack to mark (i.e. a fighter throwing a javelin)? Do you allow a typical non-basic fighter power to mark (say, Covering attack)? Do you allow area effects like Sweeping Blow (which attacks all adjacent foes, fighter encounter level 3 power)?

If you allow ranged attacks, and a fighter's area attacks, where do you draw the line? Marking in this point of view represents nothing more than a mild "challenge" - nothing more. Frankly, Kzach's certainly right that it's a real oversight that the PHB just doesn't actually come out and say what marking is supposed to represent or how it's supposed to work. It's not even in the index, and has no section in the combat chapter (just a marked condition which is hardly illuminating).

By the way, the difficult to find FAQ doesn't address the breath weapon, but does point out that a creature that's not an actual target of an attack (such as the victim of the secondary damage of a cleave attack) is not marked.

Offtopic:
[sblock]

Regardless, one of the things what we ask people not to do is to say "well, that's a fine house rule" or "you realise that is a house rule", because 9 times out of 10 it is a handy way of dismissing someone, and frankly we don't like policing it just for the 1 time in 10 when it may be completely justified.

That's why we don't let people play the "that's a house rule" card.

Man, what a nasty house rule![/sblock]