Marking

[mneme]

Nark: Yep. More often than not, the bear should ignore the mark in this case and attack the striker. If they miss a few times and take mark punishment, they might change their mind.

 

[jeffh]

The bear should probably get the hell out and seek easier prey. But if that isn't an option for whatever reason, yes, I would generally have it go after the striker. Either way, it isn't just going to blindly obey the mark.

 

[Colmarr]

if "Bob" marks the bear but does 8 HP of damage, and Tom the striker mauls the bear for 40 hp of damage, does the bear blindly obey the mark and attack Bob, or does self preservation kick in and the bear attacks Tom.

Ordinarily I would have the bear maul Tom, but every situation can be different even with the same combatants.

For example, if the bear decides to turn and flee but then finds itself trapped by Bob's combat superiority feature, it'll probably turn its attention back to Bob. At that point, his lockdown is more of a problem for it than Tom's damage.

Of course, it's also worth mentioning that this sort of roleplaying should be happening on both sides of the table. If your players are all planning tactics like chessmasters and with no regard for the in-game story ("Don't worry about saving the princess yet. She has 50hp and the buzzsaw only does 1d10+6 per round"), you should feel free to act accordingly.

 

[DNH]

Of course, it's also worth mentioning that this sort of roleplaying should be happening on both sides of the table. If your players are all planning tactics like chessmasters and with no regard for the in-game story ("Don't worry about saving the princess yet. She has 50hp and the buzzsaw only does 1d10+6 per round"), you should feel free to act accordingly.

This is a very good point. I am working hard to stop my own group from running through every possible tactical combination each turn. They will occasionally run the numbers too, which I am generally quick to stamp on.

Back to the original point, IIRC RAW has it that every target always knows about the mark, regardless of language or intelligence. But that is not to say that they are immediately aware of the effects of that mark (see Aulirophile's post above). I would add my own voice to those here that call for the role-playing of the target. I tend to have less intelligent monsters ignore the mark if it suits them, at least until that mark has a direct effect on them. The more intelligent foes react more appropriately. And the very intelligent ones do their utmost to avoid getting marked in the first place.

Oh and kudos to mkill for pointing out about it being no fun for Defender players if they never get to implement their "punishment mechanic".

 

[S'mon]

As DM I tell a player their PC is marked, but I don't tell the player about special consequences for violating the monster mark. It should be the same for monsters; they know they are marked, but not initially about special consequences beyond the -2 to-hit.

Exceptions would be if the monster is able to recognise eg a Paladin's mark from experience, but that kind of thing should be unusual. Normally the monster just knows the marker is interfering with them & distracting them.

Edit: In the rare case of INT 0 monsters who act entirely according to a 'program' I'd rule they ignored marks, unless it was part of their 'script' not to do so.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would also support you in playing your monsters...

...in a believable way.

... in a way, that makes the game fun for everyone, i.e. that allows a defender to shine and makes the rogue feel threatened too...

 

[Stumblewyk]

Tangentially related to this topic is an interesting scenario I've encountered regarding marking effects in my 2 VERY different 4e games.

In the game I'm primarily a player in, I've found that defenders typically end up marking, and then the marked creatures stand there and beat on the defender, regardless of practicality or reason. We have 2 different DMs are who are not shy about saying "I'm marked, why should I move the creature? They'll just get wailed on." As such, playing a defender has largely become an exercise in pumping defenses, surgeless healing, and multiple-target marking. Also, both DMs hate defenders. Hate them. I'm playing a cavalier in one game and with my Defender Aura and AC requiring a roll of 14 or higher from the DM in many occasions, I constantly hear things like "Here goes another wasted roll," when I'm being attacked. Or "Why bother taking OA's with the paladin standing there, my minion will just die." Yes, your minion WILL die. But that's the POINT. It's frustrating. So much so that I'm not sure why I agreed to roll up a fighter for our level 12 group that's resuming SoW in a few weeks. u_u

In the game I run however, I try to use what I call the "smart/stupid target" approach. If a smart creature is marked, it knows it's bad news to try and move away from the wary, mean old fighter-type. So, they'll do what they can to deal with the fighter-type and then push that fighter-type away, and move once they're safe to do so. A dumber monster says "You marked me? So what? That guy back there with the crazy-huge bow and that dude with the giant axe just really messed my junk up. I'm taking one of them down. Hard." And they potentially get whacked and stuck dealing with the defender anyway. But it give the defender something to do other than practice their elementary math skills while building their character and then stacking dice the rest of the time.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Defender's are probably more than any other role, dependent on knowing their DM when building. If the DM leans towards the respect the mark side, you get more out of making yourself survivable ... if he leans towards the "get to the squishies" side, then you want to pump up your stickiness, OAs, etc instead.

Optimally, it should be a balancing act ... if you make your defences/(t)hp too good, monsters will always (eventually) look elsewhere, while if you make your punishments nasty enough they'll default to just attacking you (eventually). If nothing else, there should probably be at least one situation in a fight were an enemy tries to see if they can get away with something to "find out" what the defenders mark punishment is, unless they turn out to be someone that has the group scouted.

 

[OnlineDM]

This is an area where my DMing philosophy is under active development. I read a blog last week that was going through the various defender class pros and cons, and that article LOVED the Battlemind's punishment mechanic and thought it was borderline overpowered. I, on, the other hand, have been running a game where the defender is a Battlemind, and she's NEVER gotten to use her Mind Spike in three levels of play. This is because she can only Mind Spike an adjacent enemy, and if a marked enemy is adjacent to her, it attacks her.

However, I ran the first session of the Dark Legacy of Evard season of D&D Encounters last night, and on several occasions I had the monsters shift while adjacent to the Knight (getting punished) and in one case attack a different PC than the adjacent knight (getting punished - although in this case, the monster succeeded in killing the other PC). I know it was a lot more fun for the Knight to be able to use his punishment mechanics - and the battle was plenty hard even without me playing the monsters "optimally".

In the case of the Battlemind, I think part of the problem is that it's a 4 PC party, which means that it's rare for the Battlemind AND another PC to be adjacent to the same monster (they don't seem to flank much), so the monster either attacks the adjacent Battlemind or MOVES AWAY to attack someone else (provoking an opportunity attack, but not a Mind Spike).

I definitely will look for more opportunities to let my defenders punish monsters for ignoring marks when it makes sense for the monster to do so. More fun for everyone!

Is this an area that WotC has written much about? I don't recall a lengthy discussion of this topic in the DMG, but I think it deserves one.

 

[Aulirophile]

The above is why Lightning Rush is a non-option for Battleminds, LR is the thing that actually makes them effective defenders.