DDXP characters - unexpected tactics?

[Hypersmurf]

I know I saw one of the designers state that this isn't correct. You need to be one of the flanking allies to be able to take advantage of the Combat Advantage. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I saw this reference, but it was in the last few days.

Yeah, I found it.

It looks like T_U - like keterys - must have had a DM who got it wrong, and he reported accordingly.

-Hyp.

 

[tomBitonti]

Combat Challenge (when you attack you may mark the enemy, giving a -2 to attack targets other than you, only one mark per enemy, new mark supersedes old one)

Remaining text omitted.

Does that mean that I could mark one of my own teammates to take away an opponents mark?

Hmm, I suppose that monsters won't follow the same mechanic. (I get thrown off by the lack of symmetry in the mechanics.)

 

[tomBitonti]

One thing I saw tossed around earlier regarding flanking - but it's not really clear in the appendix handout - is that as long as two allies are in position, everyone gets Combat Advantage against the flanked enemy. If your fighter and your paladin are adjacent-and-opposite, the hobgoblin is flanked... and therefore the ranger twenty feet away has Combat Advantage.

The appendix handout doesn't phrase it in quite that way, and it could be read that only the people creating the flanking state get the advantage.

-Hyp.

I find this curious ... wasn't there a clarification early on in 3E that was to say that "flanked" was not a condition of the flank-ee, but a condition on the flankers?

 

[helium3]

Nothing personal helium3, but I'm constantly amazed that people still don't understand how divine challenge works.

Well, I don't always parse the rules text as closely as I should. And, now that I parse it, I see that you're correct. Sucks to be me.

While there is an obvious synergy in having 2 defenders, I don't see how it's any more of a problem than having two controllers, two strikers or 2 leaders.

I think the specific issue in this case is that two defenders could mark the same enemy and create a situation where the marked enemy would incur the mark related penalty regardless of what action it took. For whatever reason, this was considered bad enough to result changes to how marks work.

 

[helium3]

Remaining text omitted.

Does that mean that I could mark one of my own teammates to take away an opponents mark?

Hmm, I suppose that monsters won't follow the same mechanic. (I get thrown off by the lack of symmetry in the mechanics.)

My head will explode if there isn't rules verbiage that explicitly disallows this. Besides, doesn't the Fighter's mark have to be followed by a successful attack of some kind?

 

[fafhrd]

Mark follows the attack, and it doesn't have to be successful.

 

[helium3]

Mark follows the attack, and it doesn't have to be successful.

So then there'll have to be rules that explicitly disallow demarking an ally with a slap of your hand? Or is this one of the tactical options PC's will have at their disposal during an encounter? Or is this one of those "so in violation of the spirit of the rules that all reasonable DM's will disallow it and players shouldn't complain" kind of things.

 

[fafhrd]

One of the WotC folks stopped by and said that you could mark your buddies but it wouldn't usually be worth it. Given that marking is esoteric all by itself, I'm not convinced that using it defensively is really going to be a thing that needs to be rationalized. I'm not a partisan simulationist though.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Remaining text omitted.

Does that mean that I could mark one of my own teammates to take away an opponents mark?

Hmm, I suppose that monsters won't follow the same mechanic. (I get thrown off by the lack of symmetry in the mechanics.)

Like you just quoted yourself, when you attack you may mark the enemy. I would not think teammate = enemy. And of course, thre is the matter of having to actually ATTACK the "enemy" before you can mark them. I am sure your teammate will like that one.

 

[helium3]

One of the WotC folks stopped by and said that you could mark your buddies but it wouldn't usually be worth it. Given that marking is esoteric all by itself, I'm not convinced that using it defensively is really going to be a thing that needs to be rationalized. I'm not a partisan simulationist though.

I don't think you have to be a card carrying member of the Simulationist Party to think character's being able to use their marking ability on their allies to remove enemy marks is a little wonky, even without any attempts to justify it.

I suppose it makes sense, in the same way that it totally makes sense for a wizard to scorching ray a party member that's paralyzed and covered in green slime. Probably more of a waste of an action though, unless that enemy mark is allowing some really nasty stuff to go down.

I suppose that's the rub, really. Usage of the mark in this fashion is likely no big deal as long as future Splatbooks never ever contain powers tied to marks that are far nastier than normal. Then, you might see Defensive Marking happen a whole lot more often and it might be something that people start to take issue with.