Monsters that mark: A pain for DMs

[Belphanior]

I'm sure the proof is in the pudding, but I really can't see what's going to be so hard about this. Even if the hostile group consists of nothing but soldiers I assume they're disciplined enough to not get in eachother's way. "Bob marked the PC fighter? Ok that's cool, I'll just go tango with that warlord over there then."

Plus, I'm confident enough in my own brain that I can remember whether or not it was Soldier #2 or Soldier #3 who marked the fighter.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

It is a major additional complication (much more complicated than simple status effects since you've got to remember who caused the mark). I'm not yet convinced that it offers anything really worthwhile to the game.

As ainatan asked up near the top of the thread "what is the ultimate purpose of marks?"

I disagree that keeping track of who marked you is "much" more complicated than status effects. It happens so often you get used to checking every round "Who am I marked to? Ok, I attack him to avoid the -2."

As for its purpose. It is their to facilitate the defender role and allow an archetype that doesn't work that well without it: The heavily defensive fighter. You know, the dwarf in full plate with a shield who is as tough as nails and can take a bunch of blows before dying. IF you can hit him.

This is an archetype that is strong in MMOs in particular, since almost every last one has a class whose job it is to get monsters to attack them and to be tough enough to take it while everyone else hurts it. However, I've seen people try to make that character type a number of times in 3e/3.5e.

The problem with this archetype is that very quickly you realize that it doesn't fit in a group that well. It can stand there and up its AC a lot and have a lot of hitpoints but unless it is in very rare circumstances, there is no reason at all for the enemies to ever attack it. So, when enemies are in melee with the rogue sneak attacking them and the dwarven fighter who keeps missing due to his strength being low and the penalty to hit due to his tower shield and the fact that he spent his money on a better magic armor than weapon...well, it's rather a no-brainer who you are going to attack.

The "best" solution to this from a mechanical point of view is probably some fighter ability that just MAKES the monsters attack you like they have in most MMOs. However, most people dislike the idea that the fighter can somehow "charm" the monster into attacking them. So, you need to find another answer or completely reject the idea that a martial class can ever "protect" the rest of their group.

The answer they came up with was simply to give monsters(and vice versa when used on players) a mechanical reason to attack the creature that marked them without "forcing" them to. Do you attack the rogue and take -2 to the attack roll but stop the sneak attacks from coming or do you attack the fighter and not take any minuses?

So, what it adds is an interesting tactical choice that lets there be a reason for a group to have a fighter instead of more rogues or rangers.

 

[small pumpkin man]

The "best" solution to this from a mechanical point of view is probably some fighter ability that just MAKES the monsters attack you like they have in most MMOs. However, most people dislike the idea that the fighter can somehow "charm" the monster into attacking them. So, you need to find another answer or completely reject the idea that a martial class can ever "protect" the rest of their group.

Specifically, it appears to be there for monsters of level 3 and lower, high level Soldiers tend to slow, immobilize, pull and/or weaken the target, base marking with no other bonuses is for Soldiers of low enough level that giving them all that other stuff would make them too tough. If you wanted to get rid or reduce monster marks, swapping it for all or some of them to slow might work.

 

[Wormwood]

It is a major additional complication (much more complicated than simple status effects since you've got to remember who caused the mark). I'm not yet convinced that it offers anything really worthwhile to the game.

I'm as pro-4e as one can get, and I find myself sharing these reservations.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As for its purpose. It is their to facilitate the defender role and allow an archetype that doesn't work that well without it: The heavily defensive fighter. You know, the dwarf in full plate with a shield who is as tough as nails and can take a bunch of blows before dying. IF you can hit him.

It seems to me that a cleaner way of doing it would be for a fighter to force a -2 penalty on attacks against anyone other than himself from someone he threatens (or automatically grant +2 power bonus to the AC of his chosen allies who are next to him).

That way the mechanical effect would be largely preserved, without worrying about who is marking who, whether a mark has been overridden or not and what-not.

Now we know that the fighter can get 'mark multiple opponent' exploits from that "Dungeon" article, so I wouldn't dream of coming up with an actual alternative until I've read everything.

But while I commend all those people for whom the issue of marks (and monster marks in particular) isn't going to be a problem, it is still a new mechanic to add an additional layer of complication.

BTW, the reason why I think it is much more complicated than status effects is that with a status effect it just *is* until it goes. Marks are linked to someone else, can be overwritten by other marks (and I can't wait to see how they write *that* to prevent the using of marks against ones allies as a viable tactic). basically it is more paperwork during melee, and I want less paperwork during melee

Cheers

 

[Ydars]

On a slightly different topic, do the PCs automatically KNOW who has marked them in combat immeditely? I ask as the only way "marking" makes sense is if one of the monsters is concentrating on restricting the mobility and distracting the PC from attacking anyone else. So how would the PC know this until he tries to attack someone else?

I just ask because marking becomes much more effective (at least for one round) if the PC doesn't automatically know he has been marked, because then he is much more likely to attack the "wrong" monster and suffer the -2 penalty. I guess the same might be true for monsters (maybe they have to pass a spot test to know).

 

[Nebulous]

I'm as pro-4e as one can get, and I find myself sharing these reservations.

I find myself agreeing too. The small amount of playtesting we used it was a little problematic. With more practice, it might get easier.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I'm as pro-4e as one can get, and I find myself sharing these reservations.

Same here. I've run a "playtest" with the old Oakhurst, and I enjoyed it as DM, and did the players (mostly, though they were still in 3E mindset, which caused a slow start). But marking? I'm already writing down hit points, used/recharged abilities, now relational stuff as well? Conditions were simple, because they were just slapped on a monster or a PC. But marking tracks origin and target, making it much more annoying to a) write down, and b) remember at the right time.

And while I'm a fan of cards for powers and conditions, it's unreasonable for me to dole out paperchits with markings every round. For a single monster, it may be ok, but more than one... ?

Cheers, LT.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

On a slightly different topic, do the PCs automatically KNOW who has marked them in combat immeditely? I ask as the only way "marking" makes sense is if one of the monsters is concentrating on restricting the mobility and distracting the PC from attacking anyone else. So how would the PC know this until he tries to attack someone else?

I just ask because marking becomes much more effective (at least for one round) if the PC doesn't automatically know he has been marked, because then he is much more likely to attack the "wrong" monster and suffer the -2 penalty. I guess the same might be true for monsters (maybe they have to pass a spot test to know).

It's not clearly stated, but I think to facilitate the intentions of the power - forcing the marked to attack you, not some of your comrades - the marked target should be aware of the mark. The power doesn't get automatically better just because someone accidentally/unwittingly takes a -2 penalty, since there is a good chance even with knowledge of the penalty, he would prefer to attack that. The "interesting" thing of the marks is that you need to make a tactical decision about it. If you are not aware of it, that's lost.


I don't know yet how it will affect the actual gameplay. It might be on par with 3.x condition effects. Maybe I come around this weekend to run a 4E light playtest, but IIRC, my encounter setup doesn't include monsters with marks, so i don't know if I'll notice the DM perspective on it.
In the long run, two aspects define how problematic this can really be:
- How many monsters rely on marking (and how many in an average encounter)
- How will rules familiarity affect the complexity of the rule?
I think it's okay if some encounters become very complex and hard to manage. This can be fun. But if the majority of encounters become complex too it, that's not fun any more.

 

[small pumpkin man]

It seems to me that a cleaner way of doing it would be for a fighter to force a -2 penalty on attacks against anyone other than himself from someone he threatens (or automatically grant +2 power bonus to the AC of his chosen allies who are next to him).

That way the mechanical effect would be largely preserved, without worrying about who is marking who, whether a mark has been overridden or not and what-not.

Well, a 4e character can shift out and charge another character in the same round, marking allows Soldiers to perform their role even with the high movement of 4e, (it also allows them to defend flying allies, to an extant, anyway) it also relies less on placement than your solution, making the game less reliant on miniatures. (One reason I do personally like marks)

Of course those don't matter so much for monsters.

On a slightly different topic, do the PCs automatically KNOW who has marked them in combat immeditely? I ask as the only way "marking" makes sense is if one of the monsters is concentrating on restricting the mobility and distracting the PC from attacking anyone else. So how would the PC know this until he tries to attack someone else?

I just ask because marking becomes much more effective (at least for one round) if the PC doesn't automatically know he has been marked, because then he is much more likely to attack the "wrong" monster and suffer the -2 penalty. I guess the same might be true for monsters (maybe they have to pass a spot test to know).

Except that's not the point, the monster doesn't want them to attack the other monster, because they have less hp and a lower AC (even after the -2), the monster wants them to go "that's not worth it" and attack the Soldier instead, so that the artillery and strikers can beat them up unmolested.

(Or perhaps more specifically, the Soldier wishes to put the markee in a lose-lose situation, where either option has it's own penalties)