Divine Challenge (and all marks) question

[keterys]

Another good one:
Death Knight (L25) divine challenge:
Ranged 5; the target is marked until the death knight uses this power against another target. If the target makes an attack that doesn’t include the death knight as a target, the target takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls and 14 necrotic damage.

That'd be a fun one to last forever on a PC. I can just see it now, them carrying along a bit of the death knight so he can be included in attacks.

 

[KarinsDad]

All these unending marks are why we have DMs guys.

 

[keterys]

Sure. And depending on who you play with, a player might argue for a mark persisting while they were unconscious.

Or beg for one to end when an enemy's unconscious.

I'd still rather they just officially realizing they screwed up and errata-ed it.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure. And depending on who you play with, a player might argue for a mark persisting while they were unconscious.

Or beg for one to end when an enemy's unconscious.

I'd still rather they just officially realizing they screwed up and errata-ed it.

Me too. Wishing for worthwhile errata (on a consistent basis) is like wishing to win the Lottery. People do it all the time, but it rarely helps.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'd still rather they just officially realizing they screwed up and errata-ed it.

If they errata'd every possible hinky rules interaction the game would have more rules than game.

And you'd end up with Rolemaster.

How a -single- monster interacts with a -single- tactic is something the DM has full control over, and strangely, the DM has the ability to make a decision about it.

I don't see this requiring erratta or clarity on the rules for the marked condition itself, because a) The rules actually work, b) it's not a player balance issue, and c) 99% of the time there is no problem whatsoever.

Errata are for when the rules don't work, or there's a -heavy- player balance issue (or a legitimate misprint). This is neither.

 

[eamon]

How a -single- monster interacts with a -single- tactic is something the DM has full control over, and strangely, the DM has the ability to make a decision about it.

The problematic gameplay involves all creatures that can mark and all creatures they mark to a greater or lesser extent. The perverse incentive to continue pounding a dropped or even dead foe (include the dead enemy in a fireball to avoid the -2...) just because he marked you while alive is bad from a gamist perspective pretty much no matter what, particularly when the PC's are doing the marking (as is usually the case). Then there's the in-game believability issue, being that the interpretation of many marks (which are already tricky in the first place) becomes a laughing stock when the marking creature is dead. I don't need rules that undermine the tone of the adventure and turn the game into something best made fun of.

The DM can fix everything. That's a cop-out: I suggest every DM fix this matter, and what better way to suggest that to every DM than by embedding it as part of the rules.

 

[DracoSuave]

The problematic gameplay involves all creatures that can mark and all creatures they mark to a greater or lesser extent.

The problem only exists for creatures that can lay down a mark for a duration other than a turn. That's Divine Challenge (easily circumvented) and this -one- monster. Oh and a single Fighter power, maybe.

I just don't see the need to go all errata on this. One is circumvented by a shift of one square... is an errata -really- necessary just to cover -one- single monster?

The perverse incentive to continue pounding a dropped or even dead foe (include the dead enemy in a fireball to avoid the -2...) just because he marked you while alive is bad from a gamist perspective pretty much no matter what, particularly when the PC's are doing the marking (as is usually the case).

That's not much of a problem. Very few PC marks have any sort of persistant duration. I have no problem with a mark lasting while the PC is dying. If you're that low on hps to begin with, maybe marking is a -bad tactical decision- and this is one of the reasons why.

If there's a need for errata, it's for what effects do and don't go away when you die. That's a problem with -death- not with the marking rules.

Then there's the in-game believability issue, being that the interpretation of many marks (which are already tricky in the first place) becomes a laughing stock when the marking creature is dead. I don't need rules that undermine the tone of the adventure and turn the game into something best made fun of.

Again, the problem is the rules for character -death- and how it applies to effects in general, not to marks themselves. Let's focus on the -real- issue here.

The DM can fix everything. That's a cop-out: I suggest every DM fix this matter, and what better way to suggest that to every DM than by embedding it as part of the rules.

-If- there is errata necessary, it is -not- for the marked condition. As indicated above, the problem is in how death effects effects in general. -That- is where the rules break down.

Other than that tho, marking works -just fine- and thusly, errata are a waste of resources.



EDIT: Not having my books handy, isn't there something that says your effects end if you die? If that's the case, well, then marking is certainly covered as well. I know I use that as a houserule, with the exception of save ending conditions.

 

[keterys]

The problem only exists for creatures that can lay down a mark for a duration other than a turn. That's Divine Challenge (easily circumvented) and this -one- monster. Oh and a single Fighter power, maybe.

Actually it's almost every mark except for a few powers, etc. Most don't end on unconsciousness, so even a 1 turn mark will still result in a monster faced with an unconscious (or dead) marker going 'Umm, I know he was threatening me before Steve went, but he's down now, can't my turn work normally?'

I just don't see the need to go all errata on this. One is circumvented by a shift of one square... is an errata -really- necessary just to cover -one- single monster?

Well, yes. Errata should fix even one monster. But in this case it's over 90% of the times mark is applied so... you're just a bit off there.

That's not much of a problem. Very few PC marks have any sort of persistant duration. I have no problem with a mark lasting while the PC is dying. If you're that low on hps to begin with, maybe marking is a -bad tactical decision- and this is one of the reasons why.

Paladin Valorous Smites and marks three targets. They need 18s to hit him and his hp are in good shape, so he's fine. The first two crit, dropping him - possibly even killing him. That third takes damage and a penalty to attack if he doesn't attack the dying paladin -or- dead corpse, and you think that's acceptable design? Even if it's acceptable for the dying part, the dead seems like it should clearly be right out.

Again, the problem is the rules for character -death- and how it applies to effects in general, not to marks themselves. Let's focus on the -real- issue here.

Can you bring up other examples than marks of things that should end with death?

Cause I think it'd be a better change for marks to end on unconsciousness, and with that change I think I'm good with the rules for what ends on death already.

EDIT: Not having my books handy, isn't there something that says your effects end if you die? If that's the case, well, then marking is certainly covered as well. I know I use that as a houserule, with the exception of save ending conditions.

Your sustain powers and certain other power types do, yes. But most, no.

 

[DracoSuave]

Actually it's almost every mark except for a few powers, etc. Most don't end on unconsciousness, so even a 1 turn mark will still result in a monster faced with an unconscious (or dead) marker going 'Umm, I know he was threatening me before Steve went, but he's down now, can't my turn work normally?'

It depends on what the mark reflects narratively. If the mark reflects, say, a cutting wound that angers you against the giver, then yeah, actually, it'd still work after they're dead.

But even then, it's -only a turn-. And the player is dead. Throw a bone here.

Well, yes. Errata should fix even one monster. But in this case it's over 90% of the times mark is applied so... you're just a bit off there.

Less than a turn of this situation is -hardly- an indication the rules are broken. It works -fine- as is. The monster gets a penalty for a tiny bit. Big deal.

Paladin Valorous Smites and marks three targets. They need 18s to hit him and his hp are in good shape, so he's fine. The first two crit, dropping him - possibly even killing him. That third takes damage and a penalty to attack if he doesn't attack the dying paladin -or- dead corpse, and you think that's acceptable design? Even if it's acceptable for the dying part, the dead seems like it should clearly be right out.

And as I said, that's a problem with effects' durations and death. Marking is hardly the only case of this.

Can you bring up other examples than marks of things that should end with death?

Off the top of my head? A lot of Bard dailies have persistant effects that are supposed to be representing a song sung. Most of those last just fine.

Stances.

Bear in mind, book's not on me, but those are the first two -catagories- of things that I can think of.

Mental domination effects.

Certain types of immobilizes and restrains...

Cause I think it'd be a better change for marks to end on unconsciousness, and with that change I think I'm good with the rules for what ends on death already.

Your sustain powers and certain other power types do, yes. But most, no.

Well, not technically, sustain powers end when you fail to sustain them. Which is not -exactly- the same as ending on death. But pretty much any power that requires -some modicum- of participation of the power user could qualify.

 

[ShaggySpellsword]

This cam e up because I play a Thaneborn Barbarian Multi-Paladin, so I get ONE mark per fight. When the monsters figure out they can ALL wail on me for a round to get me unconscious and our party is defender-free, then they do. I have two great leaders keeping me alive, and I haven't died yet...I wanted my mark to continue so I could keep it up. My DM didn't want an excuse to Coup-de-gras me.