Correct me if I'm wrong: Paladin Marks

[lin_fusan]

In my time as a QA guy for a board game company, I've discovered that people learn rules in two different ways:

1) Dude buys a game and reads the rulebook. Sometimes front to back, sometimes skipping. This kind of person (or learning style) works due to the amount of time (and interest) in absorbing the information, and gets a good chunk of the rules.

2) Dude buys the game and decides to learn-on-the-fly. He follows the rulebook like step-by-step instructions, pick the sections that are relevant at the time and muddles through. This kind of dude (or learning style) works because he has turned these abstract words into practice.

I personally don't think that #2 works well with this PHB because players (not DMs) would jump only to the sections that pertain to them (such as classes).

Personal example: The Fighter player marked his target. The target attacked another player, and the Paladin player mentioned the radiant damage. Both players were confused at first, compared both abilities, then wondered if 'marked' meant the Fighter ability or the Paladin ability. That triggered my 'game term' danger sense and I flipped through the PHB looking for 'marked'.

Another example: Movement is explained in 'Movement and Position' but it also explained in 'Actions In Combat'. For example, I wanted to figure out how to 'Run' and I instinctively looked through the 'Movement and Position' section, but it's located in 'Actions In Combat'.

If every player in my game read the book cover-to-cover, then we wouldn't have this issue. Instead, we wanted to jump into a game right away.

 

[abyssaldeath]

I'm usually number 2, but with games as complicated as PnP RPG's, I have to be option number 1.

 

[RefinedBean]

In what book is the Shield of Throwing?

The Adventurer's Vault. Might be called "Throwing Shield" instead, I don't know for sure.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but...

You're kinda failing. It's okay to disagree, but please ratchet back the sarcasm. It's clouding the points you're trying to make.

Thanks. Carry on, folks.

 

[Rar]

Lessons learned as a user-interface programmer:

If something is only perfectly clear if:

- The user follows all instructions perfectly
- The user never forgets or misunderstands anything he/she read

... then it's not perfectly clear.

A good litmus test of whether something is clear is... whether people find it confusing or not.

 

[Nail]

A good litmus test of whether something is clear is... whether people find it confusing or not.

ROTFL!

Well put.

 

[YuriPup]

I am having problems buying that marks are different per class or character.

The condition description of marked says nothing about ownership /or/ source of the mark and in fact gives no indication that PCs can mark too.

The fighter block on Combat Challenge

In addition, whenever a marked enemy that is adjacent to you...

Implies to a strict reading that the AOO effect triggers on any marked enemy doing whatever.

The paladin powers that do get bonuses from marking all explicitly say "that you marked" (EG Enfeebling Strike, Holy Strike, valiant Strike (92)).

So where I am I missing that marked is a unique condition where source matters?

Really it looks to me that a fighter could live off paladin/cleric marks quite nicely for the AOO.

 

[Caliban]

I am having problems buying that marks are different per class or character.

By default, marked is a generic condition. Certain class abilities or powers make a distinction between your mark or someone elses.

So where I am I missing that marked is a unique condition where source matters?

Well, source does matter for determining when the penalties for being marked kick in (you only get the -2 if you attack somone other than the creature that marked you), but I don't think that is what you are referring to.

Really it looks to me that a fighter could live off paladin/cleric marks quite nicely for the AOO.

Check out the PHB errata (on page 2 of the errata). http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/UpdatePH.pdf

Combat Challenge [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 76
In the second paragraph, replace “a marked enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack” with “an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack.”​

Also, keep in mind that the Combat Challenge gives you an immediate interrupt attack, not an opportunity attack. There is an important difference between the two. (Combat Supiority gives you a bonus on opportunity attacks, and stops their movement. Combat Challenge gives you an extra attack as an immediate interrupt, but does not stop the shift or attack. It is possible to trigger both abilities on the same target under the right circumstances.)

 

[DracoSuave]

So where I am I missing that marked is a unique condition where source matters?

Really it looks to me that a fighter could live off paladin/cleric marks quite nicely for the AOO.

Combat Challenge isn't an Opportunity Attack. I know it seems a nitpick, but it matters when the very next class feature triggers off of Opportunity Attacks.

Secondly, if the Fighter multiclassed into paladin/cleric and got abilities to mark from those powers/features, then yes, in fact, the Fighter -does- get to apply those marks to Combat Challenge, because Combat Challenge only cares if the fighter marked the enemy, not -how- it was done.

It's marks from other -players- that don't matter, but that's covered in the errata.

 

[CapnZapp]

The way fighters interact with the marked condition is a mess.
The way how this is explained is a mess too.

And this from a design perspective.

If your buddy's mark does not work for you, why aren't your abilities named differently?

Having most monsters' mark work one way, certain (soldiery) monsters mark work another does not help. Especially when - with the errata - the soldier's mark is still different from the fighter's. (Now I assume - and hope - the errata covers fighters but not monster soldiers, and thus frees the DM from having to keep track of which soldier marked which PC)

Things would be immensely more clear if the rules had:
1) Martial Challenge (Fighter's mark): The -2 thing plus the ability to whack (your own MC). No "marked" about this.
2) Divine Challenge (Paladin's mark): The -2 thing plus the radiant damage (on your own DC). No "marked" about this.
3) Generic mark: Just the basic -2 thing. Anything with a special ability to do stuff to marked targets gets to do this regardless of who did the marking. Just as for all other conditions.

This way when a martial class (perhaps a new Warlord build, I don't know) gets a marked ability, he gets Martial Challenge. When a divine class (perhaps a new Cleric build, I don't know) gets it, she gets Divine Challenge.

Much easier to learn. Much easier to remember. Compared to anything like this, the original rules = complete fail.