Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xorn" data-source="post: 4141541" data-attributes="member: 61231">Verys Arkon, you're dead on--anything we speculate about how it's going to be fixed is just that, speculation.I'm guilty of using the wrong word here, I should have written, "I really hope the mark change will involve" instead of what I put, but that's what I meant.  As we've been doing fan playtest/demos for the last three weeks, it's easy to start typing in past tense about mechanics.Forcing the paladin to make a melee attack to mark isn't a bad idea, but forcing the paladin to try to engage the target isn't a bad idea, either.  I agree that the spirit of the challenge (which requires a minor action, it's not automatic) actually is better served by the PrRC current text.  All we've gotten out of Wizard's is "you have to Paladin up" and "it still works the same".So while the current text is a little muddy (for the scenarios described above) it's not a bad ruling.  In my last dragon fight, Nightscale flies out to her isle, marked by the paladin, separating them with deep water.  The paladin is chucking throwing hammers at the dragon, and moving around the lake edge to where the shallow water gets closer to the dragon.  But technically, the square he made it to was farther away than the one he started in.Under the PrRC rule, the DM has to make a judgement call--which isn't bad, but for a situation that could come up a lot, this doesn't feel very 4E, where judgement calls are reserved for rare (read: kick ass) things, and the everyday is clearly defined.  But I can't say it's wrong--it just feels clunky.  (Let's not discuss Marking clunkiness though, LOL!)Under my rule, the mark fades--as he didn't make a melee attack.  Now on the next turn, as long as he gets within range, he can re-mark the target (can't "re-mark" him when the mark is still up).  My idea for this came from the other marks (which involve attacking) and the concept behind marking (this ferocious warrior is all over you, and a distracting threat).  It feels very clean--there's no much interpretation occurring here; either you make a melee attack, or you don't.  But at the same time, this grants the enemy the ability to cower from the target, or even escape the mark.But yes, both rules are pure speculation.In the end, I think the PrRC rule is going to be closer to the 4E rules, but it will be a clean definition.The more I think about it the less I like my rule now--simply because it gives a creature the ability to escape the mark by running away--even if it requires great effort.But I don't want a warrior with a longbow marking a creature 40 squares away with a longbow either, even if the situation will probably never occur.  So that's why I liked the idea of making melee attacks.Either way, this is a great discussion, and while all we have the ability to do is speculate (unless a kind soul at Wizards wants to finally solve this for us all <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) at least this is some entertaining speculation.EDIT - Oh, and I don't know what the cleaner wording for the PrRC rule would be.  "To the best of his ability" regarding getting to the target gets cloudy when you start thinking about OAs, for instance.  If an approach involves an OA, or a swimming check, etc--that's where the judgement calls come in, and for a mechanic that will be utilized every fight (if not every round) I don't want that rule to be opaque.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification