How do you RP marking?

[Obryn]

The Fighter's Mark is the same way. In NO WAY WHATSOEVER is it a compulsion, magical or otherwise. It tells the Marked foe, "If I attack the Rogue, I take a penalty to hit and may get whacked. If I attack the Fighter, I don't get a penalty OR get whacked, but I don't get to attack the person I want to attack." It's 100% a choice. It's up to the DM whether he follows the mark or not- it's always a tactical decision. Sometimes the penalty of ignoring a mark are worth taking, sometimes they're not.

Yep. I said it above, and UltimaGabe says it here.

A mark isn't about an enemy being afraid of a fighter, feeling aggression towards the fighter, or getting tricked into attacking the fighter. It's all about the fighter being damn good at messing up enemies' attacks, and about taking the opportunity to mess up an opponent who isn't focused on them.

It's not a CRPG "aggro" mechanic, because there's a living DM behind the screen analyzing tactical choices. It gives incentives for enemies to act a certain way, by imposing consequences for doing otherwise. It doesn't force the monster to fear or hate the fighter.

It's not about the mark. It's about the fighter.

-O

 

[avin]

In despite of some really good examples presented here, it still won't explain how the antagonist should get -2 to hit the Wizard if, let's say, from a distance a Fighter trow him an axe for 5 damage while a Ranger has hit him in the same turn for 10 damage.

Fluff has abandoned Crunch in this one.

 

[Tale]

In despite of some really good examples presented here, it still won't explain how the antagonist should get -2 to hit the Wizard if, let's say, from a distance a Fighter trow him an axe for 5 damage while a Ranger has hit him in the same turn for 10 damage.

Fluff has abandoned Crunch in this one.

The Fighter insulted his mother.

 

[Obryn]

In despite of some really good examples presented here, it still won't explain how the antagonist should get -2 to hit the Wizard if, let's say, from a distance a Fighter trow him an axe for 5 damage while a Ranger has hit him in the same turn for 10 damage.

Fluff has abandoned Crunch in this one.

I think it works. Fighters are simply good at messing up enemies' attacks, even from range.

The only times marking gets bizarre, IMO, are with area spells, dragon breath, etc. (And even with spells, I can accept that a Fighter could instill some of their mojo into them. Dragon breath is a real puzzler, OTOH.) At that point, I just look at it through a narrative lens and leave it be, or accept it as a gamist simplification. It's rare enough that it doesn't bother me.

-O

 

[Destil]

Fighters marking (hello Wow!) is one of my beefs with 4E.

Aggro: Target attacks the highest aggro opponent. Peroid. May have some programmed abilities that ignore it.

Marking: Target has incentive to attack the marker, but is not under any compulsion to do to.

I'm pretty sure every Diku-MMO with an aggro mechanic wishes it could mechanically support something closer to 4E.

 

[ourchair]

Let me set this straight once and for all. NOBODY IS COMPELLED TO ATTACK SOMEONE WHO IS MARKING THEM. I don't care what class the marker is, or what abilities or feats they have, MARKING IS 100% A CHOICE. If you get marked by a Fighter, you are under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to attack him. Whether you're intelligent or unintelligent, you can choose to COMPLETELY IGNORE THE MARK each and every time it happens.

If a DM plays every monster as attacking the marker under any circumstances no matter what, then he's doing it wrong.

I understand that, no need to get all caps-like: that is what I said after all, that marking does not FORCE the hand of the guy running the monsters.

My problem is that the balance between the DM making EVERY monster attacking my Warden, and the monsters NEVER attacking my Warden is completely off-balance.

I don't expect every monster to attack my Warden, but there isn't much point to being a defender if even the low-intelligent monsters never pay attention and my squishy fellows continue to get bloodied, even when I religiously implement the attack penalty and make multiple marks.

 

[LostSoul]

Like others have said, if you want the DM to stop ignoring your Marks, make it count when he does. I used to ignore Marks every now and then - almost always to the detriment of the monsters.

You could also ask your DM if you can make skill checks to get the monster to focus his next attack on you. That's a DM call but your DM might find it works.

In despite of some really good examples presented here, it still won't explain how the antagonist should get -2 to hit the Wizard if, let's say, from a distance a Fighter trow him an axe for 5 damage while a Ranger has hit him in the same turn for 10 damage.

Fluff has abandoned Crunch in this one.

It's not too hard to imagine a javelin hanging off a shield or the bad guy having to twist out of the way, losing momentum or being thrown off-balance.

My fluff problem is when you have two Marks - say, two Fighters flanking a monster. Why should one of them slack off? I don't get it.

 

[ourchair]

My fluff problem is when you have two Marks - say, two Fighters flanking a monster. Why should one of them slack off? I don't get it.

I don't know about fluff, but if I'm not mistaken, a monster cannot be subject to two marks at the same time. A new mark supersedes an old one, so it's best if the two defenders just draw monsters away from one another.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I don't know about fluff, but if I'm not mistaken, a monster cannot be subject to two marks at the same time. A new mark supersedes an old one, so it's best if the two defenders just draw monsters away from one another.

And that's the mechanic that he's having problems describing to himself.


Good luck with that. If I had any good suggestions, I'd share them.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

My fluff problem is when you have two Marks - say, two Fighters flanking a monster. Why should one of them slack off? I don't get it.

The way I usually play it, neither fighter is slacking off. When the second fighter overwrites the first fighter's mark, the first fighter's angle of attack is disrupted. He needs to reinitiate that with another attack, adjusting to the new circumstances of the battle and setting up the monster his way.

Alternatively, if the fighter mark is based more on psychology, then the second fighter has simply presented himself as a more immediate threat.