Does it make sense that Dragonborn A breaths fire on someone, deals X damage and thats it, but Dragonborn B breaths fire on someone, deals X damage and they become marked, i.e. distracted and suffer penalties? No, it really really doesn't. It makes no sense what so ever. But it's RAW so play it that way. Not a single thing in 4E that isn't a carryover from previous editions makes any sense at all. Just follow RAW, it's the only thing you can do, you can't read RAI out of the 4E train wreck, don't even bother trying.
Marking via Dragon's breath
- Thread starter scadgrad
- Start date
small pumpkin man
Explorer
When Dragonborn B is a Fighter, someone who's entire training and combat style seems to centre around being somebodies bodyguard (or possibly just being a showoff), then yes, it makes perfect sense. It makes no difference if they're using Dragonbreath or a javelin, Dragonborn B has the better training, and thus is capable of keeping his opponents focus on Dragonborn B.
Lots of things in 4e don't necessarily make sense, like a small rogue apparently being able to push a gargantuan tarrasque around. But seeing as to how no limitations are placed on push/pull powers, it appears that the designers did in fact expect that such stunts be possible, and decided to put the "burden" of rationalizing them squarely on the shoulders of the players, possibly because the collective dnd community will likely be able to come up with a much better explanation compared to what a small team of designers ever can.
Same goes for AoE marking. Just because it offends the sensibilities and may not make sense does not mean that it was never meant to be run that way.
Same goes for AoE marking. Just because it offends the sensibilities and may not make sense does not mean that it was never meant to be run that way.
Merlin the Tuna
First Post
See, I'm stuck here wondering why the thread didn't end right here.
NorthSaber
First Post
I don't think there's any difference with this compared to a fighter's melee attack and a paladin's melee attack (or ranger's, or rogue's, or...). The mark isn't a property of the attack - it's a property of the fighter, and the attack is just the delivery method.
Maybe the dragonborn fighter presents a challenge to the enemies by roaring as he blasts them, or in some other way intimidates the enemies into thinking he's the real danger who is about to hurt them a lot more, making the enemies want to take him out first.
This, as many other things in 4e (like Come And Get It), requires some co-operative thinking (or mutual ignorance) of the DM and the players to play out in a logical way.
It makes as much sense as that Dragonborn A hits someone with a longsword, deals X damage and thats it, but Dragonborn B hits someone with a longsword, deals X damage and he becomes marked.
icarusfallz
First Post
Greets! I am not attempting to flame or be argumentative here, but this is such an antagonistic response to what has otherwise been an interesting and intellectual debate. I have to ask why?
Similar Threads
