How do you RP marking?

[Doctor Proctor]

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.

Yeah, that's a pretty good explanation. Another is that essentially it's like in baseball when someone calls a catch. You don't want players running at each other and slamming into one another while looking up at the ball, so usually if one says "I got it!" then the other will ease off and let him get it.

It's easy to flavor the mark superseding rules as the Defenders basically realizing that it's foolish to both try to attract the same enemy. Under this way of thinking Fighters are really nasty though, because they basically say "I got him...for the whole encounter, and don't you dare get in my way!" when using powers like Lasting Threat.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
Yes. Exactly. However, the DM knows what marking does, it just sees to slip the mind when in actual play. Hence, bloodied leaders and untouched defender. (Which I reckon for fiendish-aligned DMs is actually a GOOD game.)

Now, I don't get the problem here.

Is your DM applying the -2 attack penalty AND you get a free attack. If so, doesn't this more than make up for the monster attacking a squishy? If it doesn't make up for hit, you don't hit enough, do enough damage or haven't got enough effects on your attack.

If you are a shield using fighter you can take the shield-push ability that can possibly push the monster away from your squishy, wasting the attack for the monster.

In my current group I only ignore the mark if I don't think the Fighter will hit, my monster has enough hp, or there are several monsters marked by the Fighter. In the latter case it's better for the monster-group that one of the soakes the damage...

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

This is the part that makes the claim of marking being all about the fighter somwwhat invalid.

The nature of marks cancelling one another out points to some degree of truth about marking being a measure of aggro. Not absolute aggro because the marked creature has a choice of targets whether marked or not.

It is aggro-like because only one defender can effect a creature with a mark at a time. Only one fighter can "gain aggro" at a time and it is the one who used the threat generating ability last.

It has nothing to do with the ability of the fighter at all actually. Lets say we have 2 fighters in a party, Bob and Ed. The party is fighting a big monster and Bob and Ed engage it to do thier job as tanks.

Bob hits the beastie with a daily power for a crit and marks it. Ed then misses the critter with an at-will and also marks it.

Ed's mark now counts and Bob's is overwritten. If the marking were all about the fighters skill how can a miss overpower a critical hit?

Ed has aggro because he was the last one to pop his threat cooldown ability in the round and pull threat off the more dangerous fighter.

 

[Herschel]

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

Why should an intelligent oponent focus on Fighter if the strikers are the real menace...? What if, on the curse example, the villain is a cold calm folk that would smile when the Fighter curses his dad?

I find it easier to accept Swordmage, Paladin and Warden marking.

I look at the fighter mark in a couple of ways: either he has enough charisma and wit to taunt the opponent or he’s wise enough to engage a partial parry or counter move an adjacent foe.

 

[Tale]

Ed's mark now counts and Bob's is overwritten. If the marking were all about the fighters skill how can a miss overpower a critical hit?

Because the mark isn't about hitting the guy. The active mark guy is the one who's actively being obnoxious and attention getting, even though he missed.

There's a billion ways to look at the mark. Not all of them define skill as "how hard the fighter hit the guy." In fact, I'd think that less than most revolve around that.


Aggro is a measure of damage and aggravation. A -2 to-hit isn't any easier to describe as damage and aggravation than a mark and a miss is to describe as skill. And interestingly enough, if you did describe it as aggravation, that description would still be valid for use as a description of skill in context.

 

[Regicide]

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.

How is a fighter who tosses a stone for a couple points of damage at a purple worm then runs around a corner more badass and disruptive than a rogue who does 10x that amount of damage and runs around the same corner? The answer is, he isn't.

Maybe in some situations marks can be thought of in a way that makes sense, but the system makes no attempt to disallow marking in situations where they don't. 4E isn't simulationist. It's kept simple so it doesn't try to simulate a real fight. It is a set of rules that fit together to make a combat system. With such a simple marking rule that has no real boundaries, there is really no real way to consistently RP it.

It's just like after the fight is over the warlord can shout over the pit at the deaf guy who is dying on the other side and make everything all better. Yeah. I dunno. Thems the rules.

 

[lukelightning]

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

Why should an intelligent oponent focus on Fighter if the strikers are the real menace...? What if, on the curse example, the villain is a cold calm folk that would smile when the Fighter curses his dad?

I find it easier to accept Swordmage, Paladin and Warden marking.

Easy. The fighter who's marked you knows how to disrupt your attack if you're not focusing on him, and you know he is skilled enough to take advantage of your distraction to lay down some serious hurt.

 

[WalterKovacs]

This is the part that makes the claim of marking being all about the fighter somwwhat invalid.

The nature of marks cancelling one another out points to some degree of truth about marking being a measure of aggro. Not absolute aggro because the marked creature has a choice of targets whether marked or not.

It is aggro-like because only one defender can effect a creature with a mark at a time. Only one fighter can "gain aggro" at a time and it is the one who used the threat generating ability last.

It has nothing to do with the ability of the fighter at all actually. Lets say we have 2 fighters in a party, Bob and Ed. The party is fighting a big monster and Bob and Ed engage it to do thier job as tanks.

Bob hits the beastie with a daily power for a crit and marks it. Ed then misses the critter with an at-will and also marks it.

Ed's mark now counts and Bob's is overwritten. If the marking were all about the fighters skill how can a miss overpower a critical hit?

Ed has aggro because he was the last one to pop his threat cooldown ability in the round and pull threat off the more dangerous fighter.

The fighters skill at disrupting an enemies attacks isn't directly tied to whether they had recently hit it or not. By that measure, most strikers are "more skilled" because they are dishing out the damage. In the above example, the monster may choose to attack the defender that crit him anyway (if he believes the marker will miss him in future attacks and the person who crit will continue to do so). This doesn't prevent the marker's ability to prevent the attack from hitting accurately, nor for him to hit it.

As a defensemen in hockey, I've played the defender role with the guy out in front of the net, being next to him, getting my hockey stick over his so that he has a harder time getting a pass etc. It's a combination of distraction, and disruption. They have to constantly move away to get into a position where I'm not disrupting their shot, and to do that distracts them from the action they need to focus on. Two guys doing this to him at once wouldn't just be inefficient (unless we have a power play, that would leave someone open) but it would have diminishing returns.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it is the kind of combination of disruption and distraction that would cause the marking attack penalty, and leave the opening for the free attack. It doesn't really fit the long range fighter marking as well, but it makes sense for a number of situations.

 

[LostSoul]

The fighters skill at disrupting an enemies attacks isn't directly tied to whether they had recently hit it or not.

It's not the -2 feature of the Mark that's the problem, it's the Combat Challenge. If you focus on someone enough so you can attack them if they don't pay attention to you, why does that stop working when there's another Mark on the guy?

 

[Tale]

Because you're letting the other guy take over.