Monsters that mark: A pain for DMs

[small pumpkin man]

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.

Meh, I'm used to running 3.x in our heads, if it's only as hard as flanking, and provides as least as much benefits (and it does from where I'm sitting), then I can't see it being a problem.

 

[Stalker0]

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"

Thing is, when your the dm running several monsters at once, keeping track of conditions, of everyone's initiative, etc, things like this can slip your mind. I've run 2 playtests so far, and I'll tell you that marking felt complicated.

Was it so complicated I couldn't do it? Of course not. But I didn't feel that the benefit was worth the extra effort. I wish solider monsters simply said, I hit that guy, he gets a -1 to attack rolls for one round. Sure its not exactly the same flavor and doesn't accomplish exactly the same thing as marking, but its a heck of a lot easier to use in combat.

 

[Li Shenron]

You're aware that, unless I've missed something, all the marks we've seen have been activated by successfully attacking an enemy, and that marks only ever last for a single round?

That's not how I read them. I thought you could change the mark once per round, not that it disappeared at the end of the round.

But if that's the case, then you should otherwise be aware that the description of the mechanic is quite redundant and complicates what is essentially much more simple.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

c.f. 3e conversations about bonus stacking in combat. A number of people say "what is the problem, it is just doing a bit of adding up, here is a tip I use to help me". The overall issue though was that it was just a pain doing lots of small simple bits of maths all over the place. It wasn't too complicated for people to do, it was just an unnecessary complication that most people felt undermined the fun of the game. Interestingly it seems that WotC research agreed with that, because they decided to do something about that for 4e (along with tracking durations, etc).

I think it is likely that this is going to come into the same kind of problem area. As other people have expressed in this thread, yes you can do it - but it is additional work which wasn't there before. It is adding a complication, and added complications, uh, add up.

From my own, admittedly limited, game design experience I've often produced rules which seem like a good idea in principle but eventually have to be ditched because in the long run they fail a "cost-benefit" analysis. "Marking" strikes me at the moment as something which seems like a good idea in principle but at the moment 'cost' is outweighing 'benefit' from my point of view.

Cheers

 

[Dunamin]

"Marking" strikes me at the moment as something which seems like a good idea in principle but at the moment 'cost' is outweighing 'benefit' from my point of view.

I don't know, my impression differs when it comes to PCs. Its not much trouble for one player to keep track of who they're marking, compared to the benefit this results in for their character. However, when it comes to the DM keeping track of marks from monsters, I'm uncertain how much is too much hassle.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't know, my impression differs when it comes to PCs. Its not much trouble for one player to keep track of who they're marking, compared to the benefit this results in for their character. However, when it comes to the DM keeping track of marks from monsters, I'm uncertain how much is too much hassle.

Doesn't the DM have to keep track of who the PC(s) are marking too though? Since it will affect the monsters attacks the DM will want to know which monsters the PCs have marked and who is marking them.

 

[Dunamin]

Doesn't the DM have to keep track of who the PC(s) are marking too though? Since it will affect the monsters attacks the DM will want to know which monsters the PCs have marked and who is marking them.

That would be the players' burden, in my opinion. As the DM runs each monster in turn, it will come natural for players to call out when they have adversely effected it.

 

[Pbartender]

That's not how I read them. I thought you could change the mark once per round, not that it disappeared at the end of the round.

But if that's the case, then you should otherwise be aware that the description of the mechanic is quite redundant and complicates what is essentially much more simple.

Oh, I'm not arguing that...

Just that the description of each attack within the stat block each monster specifies something like, "+7 vs. AC; 1d6+3 damage, and the target is marked until the end of the Kobold dragonshield’s next turn." (Emphasis mine.)

There's quite a few posters in this thread are complaining about things that aren't really problems, if only they read the pertinent rules. To wit:

• Generally a successful attack triggers a mark.
• The description of the attack tells you how long the mark lasts. So far, it only lasts until the end of the attacker's next turn.
• A marked character is not required to attack a specific target, but instead takes a -2 penalty when attacking any creature other than the one that marked him.
• Being marked initiates no other conditions, though creatures may have other special abilities and attacks that can only be triggered against a creature that they've marked.

 

[Pbartender]

Well, the fighters mark doesn't have that restriction, although the various soldier monsters do... perhaps a nod towards making 'marks' less onerous for a DM to manage for his monsters?

Admittedly, I haven't seen the fighter's mark... do you have a link?

If so, I think it could be part ease of management, and part making them more effective for charaters.

EDIT: Ooop, found it the "4E Lite" pdf... Although, "the Combat Challege" ability has two different descriptions in that document, and the decsription that marks is an incomplete description that doesn't mention duration. The full text, when revealed, could have a similar duration to those mention in the monster stat blocks.

EDIT, EDIT: Also notice that the Paladin's "Divine Challenge" mark originally lasted indefinitely until the Paladin marked someone else, but has since been "FIXED IN THE PHB TO DISALLOW THE PALADIN FROM MARKING AND RUNNING", likely by ending the mark at the end of the Paladin's next turn.

 

[FallenTabris]

c.f. 3e conversations about bonus stacking in combat. A number of people say "what is the problem, it is just doing a bit of adding up, here is a tip I use to help me". The overall issue though was that it was just a pain doing lots of small simple bits of maths all over the place. It wasn't too complicated for people to do, it was just an unnecessary complication that most people felt undermined the fun of the game. Interestingly it seems that WotC research agreed with that, because they decided to do something about that for 4e (along with tracking durations, etc).

True, if there are multiple effects on a single target it can be annoying to do the math on the fly. The stacks of duration buffing plus the difficulty in statting out NPCs is what drove me away from DMing 3.x and only playing if offered a spot.

I think it is likely that this is going to come into the same kind of problem area. As other people have expressed in this thread, yes you can do it - but it is additional work which wasn't there before. It is adding a complication, and added complications, uh, add up.

And I imagine if say my fictional target Greggor had acid, blindness and a combat mark that is a few effects to keep track of consistently. However, 4e seems to shift a lot of the book keeping to the players. Durations of penalties are conditional to how a player rolls a save. "Here take this piece of green paper. Greggor takes 2d6 each turn you hold it. You know the drill, 10+ and it is gone" Buffs also appear to be the province of leader characters with durations of turn or encounter. "I use Sacred Vigilance. Our side is immune to combat advantage until my next turn"

From my own, admittedly limited, game design experience I've often produced rules which seem like a good idea in principle but eventually have to be ditched because in the long run they fail a "cost-benefit" analysis. "Marking" strikes me at the moment as something which seems like a good idea in principle but at the moment 'cost' is outweighing 'benefit' from my point of view.

You have a good string of logic. Once we have 4e in hands everyone will have to analyze for themselves which parts are benefits and which are too 'cost heavy'.