Alternative to marks?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Too much of a pain if you ask me

Marking was a bad game design decision that the 4e designers made, I'm pretty convinced of that. Its complex to keep track of and on top of that the 'stickiness' factor of defenders is really just a sop for poor tactics. If you want to defend your controllers and snipers then YOU SHOULD HAVE PEOPLE IN THE WAY OF THE ENEMY, and on top of that there are just tactical situations, like an ambush in a relatively open area, where defending just shouldn't work very well. BUT, changing it is just more trouble than it is worth. It is not too hard to come up with some usable alternative rules, but go through the PHB and MP and you find that the marking mechanic is a core part of the rules. There are simply dozens and dozens of rule mechanics which depend on marking. Once you open the can of worms of changing all that then you have to worry about play balance and unforeseen side effects of your changes, etc. On top of that you now need to explain all these changes and keep track of them and etc. Ugh! Just not worth it. If I were going to go down that road, I'd just kick 4e to curb in its entirety. It isn't that great a system really. The only major argument for using it at all is standardization on a well supported set of rules. Once you abandon that then why not use some other d20 system or one of the much nicer dice pool systems?

 

[keterys]

This may be shocking... but it's entirely possible to _love_ the 4e ruleset, and not like the marking mechanics. It's also possible to never want to run d20 ever again, but enjoy running 4e. A suggestion to 'kick the game system to the curb' is never a valid suggestion when someone is looking to house rule one particular issue.

 

[Stalker0]

I like Keterys suggestion of just automating marking conditions.

I would drop that cha attack vs will for the paladin's mark, honestly past 1st level I don't care that much about the mark damage, the -2 to attack is more punishing imo.

 

[keterys]

Possibly - as written they have the largest area of coverage of the defenders, and most basic attacks by fighters are actually not that impressive, as good as they can be. You want to make sure the marks get somewhat close to balance.

 

[Stalker0]

Possibly - as written they have the largest area of coverage of the defenders, and most basic attacks by fighters are actually not that impressive, as good as they can be. You want to make sure the marks get somewhat close to balance.

Having seen both paladin's and fighters in my group, I have to say the fighter mark has shown itself to be superior time and time again.

The paladin's mark is plain wimpy once you climb out of about level 3, monsters have so many hitpoints that the little bit of extra damage isn't that much. The fighter's attack on the other hand can do quite a bit of damage, and it stops movement, which is a major factor.

 

[keterys]

Having seen both paladin's and fighters in my group, I have to say the fighter mark has shown itself to be superior time and time again.

Hmm, at lower levels you might be talking about, say, 6 damage automatically vs 1d10+6 that hits 50% of the time... so that works out. At epic levels, though, 2d10+16 50% of the time vs 15 automatically, hmm, still works out.

The paladin's mark is plain wimpy once you climb out of about level 3, monsters have so many hitpoints that the little bit of extra damage isn't that much.

For Str paladins, this can certainly be true. I actually think the paladin is too MAD and should be just Str + Cha, no Wis, to avoid that disparity.

The fighter's attack on the other hand can do quite a bit of damage, and it stops movement, which is a major factor.

It doesn't stop movement with combat challenge. Combat Superiority does on OAs, but that's more like comparing the paladin's lay on hands - not quite relevant to the mark discussion.

Fighters miss a lot with their challenges, so while their peak damage is certainly higher, it's a little unfair to think that automatic damage is inherently worse.

And, again, in the example I gave... 1 square radius. 5 square radius.

 

[CapnZapp]

Simplest solution?

Play Strikers, Leaders and Controllers only.

That's right, play without any Defenders (or defendery monsters). Go ahead, the game will cope just fine.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Well I have no intention of going back to 3E. The time sink caused by marks is nothing compared to the time sink cause by Evard's Black Tentacles, tripping, and so on.

If we did dump 4E, we'd do 1E AD&D or BD&D.

I agree about the paladin's damage being "wimpy". There's a belief in my group that the Swordmage's mark may be better than the fighters'.

The concept of no defenders intrigues a bit, but I'm hoping for an alternative rather than a drop of the classes.

And yes, I know that changing marking could have a far-reaching impact of the game, that's why I'd prefer a change to it that gives a passive effect rather than removing it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well I have no intention of going back to 3E. The time sink caused by marks is nothing compared to the time sink cause by Evard's Black Tentacles, tripping, and so on.

If we did dump 4E, we'd do 1E AD&D or BD&D.

Just to make sure: you didn't respond to me there, BBR?

I certainly didn't suggest going back to 3E. You're absolutely right 4E is heaven admin-wise, marks or no marks.

My suggestion was to continue using 4E, only noone creating Fighters or Paladins. Game goes on as normal, no changes needed. Can't be simpler.

If then the DM avoids Soldier monsters that place the Marked condition, then you've all but eliminated the marks of 4E, with almost no effort at all.

And you have replaced them with other things. Namely all those abilities and powers brought to the table by those replacement characters!

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Just to make sure: you didn't respond to me there, BBR?

Nope, not you.
I was responding to the suggestion by Abdul to dump 4E in favor of d20; which simply won't happen.