Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5545779" data-attributes="member: 78116">It could also have been a 0% occurence when the mark wasn't there. When the power that missed was a stun or dominate (which is often the best time to use a shield or similar), it's effect on the entire combat means a lot more than the hit percentage would suggest.There is also the case of a creature like an Owlbear, where the creature makes two attacks and autohits on another attack (which relies on the first two hitting). If it has an AP, an owlbear that rakes your wizard with a 65% chance to hit, will get the chance to use its AP that round for the extra auto-damage bite 42% of the time (as both claw attacks have to hit for the autodamage bite). If you've ever run an Owlbear, if you can ever catch a controller or striker (well probably not a barbarian) with both claws + AP + Bite it's a downed character round one - brutally devastating opening. While in reality your point about "10% of the time" isn't always true when penalties are applied, because with a -2 penalty - 55% chance of hitting now compared to 65% before - you end up with only a 30% chance of getting the automatic damage. A 12% difference compared to without the mark, which as you can see actually increases the effect of the penalty. Additionally the mark reduces the creatures overall DPR, given paragon/epic damage expressions this in itself adds up to a significant amount of damage prevented.In fact multiple attacks suffer most from marks (like solos), especially if they are one of the monsters that needs 2 or more hits on a single target for a subsequent effect.Shield works 30% of the time with a mark. It works 40% of the time with a mark + enfeebling strike. It works 50% of the time with a mark + enfeebling strike + illusory ambush. Heck a good chunk of the time you wouldn't need it in the first place and saving a valuable encounter power, because of the handy -2 penalty (that freely stacks with a bunch of other at-will penalties) is better than nothing. They work far better when you have a free and easily acquired -2 penalty on top of them. Especially when that penalty has another penalty on it and such forth. In my second epic tier game, the Sorcerer had an ability that added a -2 penalty onto any creature he hit (which was pretty good in itself). Throw a -3 mark on that and suddenly most creatures have a -5 penalty to hit a non-marked enemy. Making life exceptionally difficult for an enemy that was marked and that the sorcerer had hit. It's also one of the easiest and most stable things of those things. I mean I do mention things like illusory ambush and such, but there are important qualifiers: Those have to hit. Marks basically don't have to and makes them much more universally easy to use.In fairness this is an extremely rare corner case, but when it does happen it is quite impressive indeed.Of course it is! Are you reading my arguments or what? Taking optimal choices is optimizing. I mean that is pretty self evident! When they are immensely important to how a Knight functions, yes there is a big difference. I mean a non-dwarf Knight who lacks defend the line is just sad. There is a good reason that dwarf is one of the best rated races for the Knight (minding any defender, but Knight especially) and Defend the Line is a pure gold stance. Even I will concede that a Dwarf Knight, with Defend the Line and World Serpents Grasp is actually a pretty effective defender. Once in paragon where the struggle begins again, just take a PP with an actual marking mechanic in it and you're done. Now you've got an amazing and easy to use marking aura, with a "real mark" for anything important or that the aura has difficulty with.But this is *pure* optimization as the gulf in effectiveness between the builds is massive (almost a gaping canyon IME). You are right that a fighter not taking combat challenge or the -3 isn't the same thing. A weaponmaster who doesn't take those isn't basically curtailing their actual viability and they never need to take the -3 feat (though they probably will anyway). You may feel a Knight without those things is fine, but in my actual play experience without those the Knight struggles immensely.</blockquote>

Verification