Monsters that mark: A pain for DMs

[Falling Icicle]

Marking just really seems out of place to me in a pen and paper RPG. This type of mechanic exists in games like World of Warcraft because the monsters lack any real intelligence. Instead, they simply attack the person that has the most "aggro", which is calculated based on damage dealt, healing done, etc. Tank classes in these kinds of games thus need some kind of mechanic to force the monster to attack them in situations where their squishy mage or priest friend pulled aggro.

The problem with this is, it's totally unnecessary and, IMO, ridiculous to do something like this in a pen and paper RPG where every creature, friend or foe, is controlled by a human being. The DM can determine who has pissed off a monster in a certain situation alot better than a computer program with very basic AI can. "Aggro" isn't even something that is measured in a game like D&D, at least not in a technical sense. Will a monster turn on a Wizard that just hit him with some nasty spell, or turn on the healer that is obviously keeping the "tank" alive? It depends on the monster and the situation, which is why there is a DM. Marking simply removes this interaction and attempts to force it in a very artificial and contrived way. And even in MMOs, many creatures are immune to being "taunted," for good reason. Marking in D&D 4e seems to work not only automatically (no save), it seems to work on any creature.

Forgetting the problems with running it (I found it to be quite a nusance when our group ran the Oakhurst adventure), I find myself wondering why this game mechanic even was considered to have a place in a pen and paper RPG to begin with. I've never in previous editions thought to myself, gee, I wish fighters and Paladins could effectively force people to attack them. If anything, I think these abilities reduce the level of strategy and movement in the battle rather than add to it.

 

[small pumpkin man]

*snip*

This isn't really appropriate here, we're talking about monsters that mark, not players, that's got nothing to do with aggro, and obviously it's not forcing the player to do anything. The player can still attack the squishie, and often will, marks are just one way of making it harder, of adding tactical depth and simulating the fact that ignoring the guy in your face to attack the artillery might be be a good idea in the long run, but you're going to want to do it right if you don't want to get completely screwed over, augmenting AoOs because you can just shift and charge in 4e.

There's nothing contrived or "MMOish" about it, but if you really feel the need to voice those opinions, go post in one of the other threads about it and post there.

-Edited for snark

 

[The Little Raven]

It depends on the monster and the situation, which is why there is a DM. Marking simply removes this interaction and attempts to force it in a very artificial and contrived way.

It does nothing to remove the monster's choices in attacking the tank, wizard, or healer. It simply provides the tank with tools to actually perform his job by providing disincentive (aka -2 penalty to attack) for those who want to attack his friends, which no previous edition did, since it was merely DM fiat whether the monster would actually attack the fighter instead of the cleric. Everyone has had things to perform their jobs (clerics get healing spells, rogues get sneak attack, wizards get AoE damage spells), but the fighter has never gotten anything that has made him better at redirecting attacking foes to him instead of his allies.

 

[Falling Icicle]

*snip*

If you have a problem with something I said, feel free to report it to a moderator.

It does nothing to remove the monster's choices in attacking the tank, wizard, or healer. It simply provides the tank with tools to actually perform his job by providing disincentive (aka -2 penalty to attack) for those who want to attack his friends, which no previous edition did, since it was merely DM fiat whether the monster would actually attack the fighter instead of the cleric. Everyone has had things to perform their jobs (clerics get healing spells, rogues get sneak attack, wizards get AoE damage spells), but the fighter has never gotten anything that has made him better at redirecting attacking foes to him instead of his allies.

The warrior always has had tools to keep his opponents from killing his friends. He would get in their face and beat the crap out of them. And now, they also get the ability to make opportunity attacks against adjacent foes that attempt to shift, which by itself is a tremendously powerful tool for keeping monsters at bay. And it makes sense, fighters, being well trained experts at melee combat, can be particularly effective at countering the actions of those within reach.

But then, you add this "mark" nonsense into the picture, where fighters can, once they've hit someone, impose a penalty on that person even if they get away from the fighter. That's simply ludicrous. If they had made the ability apply to those the fighter threatens, while he threatens them, well that makes sense. But how does a fighter impose a penalty on someone that has left his reach? Okay, so you hit me once. Now I'm 100 feet away from you, how are you giving me a -2 penalty to hit this guy over here when you're way over there? It simply doesn't make any sense. I'm not at all against giving people tools to do their jobs, but those tools should make sense, rather then being contrived and nonsensical.

 

[Benimoto]

Now I'm 100 feet away from you, how are you giving me a -2 penalty to hit this guy over here when you're way over there? It simply doesn't make any sense.

The -2 is about equivalent to the old 3.x flanking bonus or the 4e combat advantage bonus except in reverse. Flanking gives a +2 to attack because your opponent has to divide his attention between two or more opponents on opposite sides. Marking gives a -2 because it's been made clear that you need to pay attention to the fighter.

Even if he's 100 feet across the room. How do you know he's 100 feet away? Because you're paying attention to him now, distracting you from other targets.

Flanking doesn't always make sense in every conceivable situation. The feeble wizard with a rusty dagger can give the fighter a flanking bonus, even though most enemies would ignore the wizard's attacks. It's an abstract rule that's been simplified to make it playable. What we know of marking has to be viewed in a similar light.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The -2 is about equivalent to the old 3.x flanking bonus or the 4e combat advantage bonus except in reverse. Flanking gives a +2 to attack because your opponent has to divide his attention between two or more opponents on opposite sides. Marking gives a -2 because it's been made clear that you need to pay attention to the fighter.

Even if he's 100 feet across the room. How do you know he's 100 feet away? Because you're paying attention to him now, distracting you from other targets.

What's forcing you to pay attention to him? Why isn't every creature paying attention to him and suffering a similar penalty? This feels more like some kind of magical compulsion than something a fighter would do.

Flanking doesn't always make sense in every conceivable situation. The feeble wizard with a rusty dagger can give the fighter a flanking bonus, even though most enemies would ignore the wizard's attacks.

Even a Wizard with a knife will hit at least 5% of the time.

It's an abstract rule that's been simplified to make it playable. What we know of marking has to be viewed in a similar light.

Well, I am usually willing to simply accept some things that seem unbelievable when they have a positive impact on gameplay. In the case of marking, I actually feel that it has a negative impact on gameplay. I can understand what they were trying to do, but the execution was rather poor, IMHO.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Let me start by saying I LOVE 4E, I've had an absolute BLAST every time I've played it (Up to 8 times now, all as DM.)

That said, I agree that the marking ability seems so far to me to be more trouble than it is worth. I've done some game design, and I've always felt that any given rule needs to bring an awful lot to the table for it's given frustrations, and so far I'm not seeing a positive ratio.

And I haven't really had any trouble with the marks. I've had no trouble keeping track of them, they just aren't GOOD enough for how much work they are.

I'm hoping they will get better with time, or the actual rules are tweaked a bit to improve it.

Fitz

 

[FallenTabris]

Wow. I'm surprized at the amount of 'this is too complicated' everyone keeps saying. It sounds super easy to keep track of marks by monsters. I'd use a pair of pennies, dimes, nickels and maybe two buttons if there are actually 4 marks capable of being laid by monsters. Then put one each these flat objects under each monster. They make a successful mark on a PC, put a like flat object under the PC mini\die\paper doll. "The Copper Shield Skeleton marked Greggor. Remember that means you have a -2 unless you smack the penny skelly, Rob"

Also, this does not seem MMOish so much as what I've experienced in miniature wargames. Take Warmachine for example. In that skirmish level game upkeep spells and other kinds of effects happen every turn. We mark them on minis with glass beads, card board chits or plastic tokens. One faction, Menoth, is especially infamous for setting characters on fire which does damage each round until going out on a D6 roll of 1 or 2. That stuff can be complicated.

And I don't even see the need to keep track of marks physically. You needn't even have to use miniatures for the combats. Other posters have made excellent points about little charts. Notebook + pencil with eraser = Prepared DM

 

[AllisterH]

Let me start by saying I LOVE 4E, I've had an absolute BLAST every time I've played it (Up to 8 times now, all as DM.)

That said, I agree that the marking ability seems so far to me to be more trouble than it is worth. I've done some game design, and I've always felt that any given rule needs to bring an awful lot to the table for it's given frustrations, and so far I'm not seeing a positive ratio.

And I haven't really had any trouble with the marks. I've had no trouble keeping track of them, they just aren't GOOD enough for how much work they are.

I'm hoping they will get better with time, or the actual rules are tweaked a bit to improve it.

Fitz

Hmm...but doesn't a -2 to attack basically result in a 4 level drop given the math behind the system? That's not an inconseuqntial penalty. True, in 3.x, a -2 to attack isn't much for front line characters thanks to the effect of str boosting and the BAB scale but a -2 to hit in 4E appears to be significant.

I think WOTC decided on marks as a mechanic to represent an archtype (a.k.a, "You will NOT pass"/ "The Bodyguard" ) since OA thensekves gave rise to the cheesiness that was the chain wielding fighter.

EDIT: The Aggro mechanic

Actually, the aggro mechanic is based on the fact that DMs, I hate to say, play monsters stupid. Most monsters with animal intelligence go for the weakest looking creature first (a.k.a, the guy NOT wielding the big pointy sword AND covered in hard to bite through armour) while most monsters with human level intelligence go for either the most dangerous target and or the easiest one to drop (which in both cases, is the mage).

If a mage unleashes a fireball on a party of ogres and then the fighter gets in the way, a DM playing the monster intelligently should have the monster sidestep the fighter and attack the mage.

That's not fun for the players of either the mage or the fighter and that's what gave birth to the aggro system in the MMORPG. There's a quote somewhere that a WoW designer was asked, "How come you make the monster be subject to aggro" and the designer pointed out, "It would be ridiculously easy to design so that the monster attacks the weakest member/most damaging member first and always, but would that be fun?".

 

[Kunimatyu]

Let me start by saying I LOVE 4E, I've had an absolute BLAST every time I've played it (Up to 8 times now, all as DM.)

That said, I agree that the marking ability seems so far to me to be more trouble than it is worth. I've done some game design, and I've always felt that any given rule needs to bring an awful lot to the table for it's given frustrations, and so far I'm not seeing a positive ratio.

And I haven't really had any trouble with the marks. I've had no trouble keeping track of them, they just aren't GOOD enough for how much work they are.

I'm hoping they will get better with time, or the actual rules are tweaked a bit to improve it.

Fitz

I think this is basically it for me -- I'm quite capable of running marks if I put enough effort in, but the amount of work required to generate what amounts to a inverse flanking bonus is just too high.