On Marking ("Why you little . . . ")

[Simon Atavax]

I haven't played 4e yet, but I'm hoping to try it out at some point in the near future (real life keeps interrupting). But a buddy of mine told me something sort of funny but also possibly interesting about his first 4e session.

They were playing a combat when the DM had a goblin (or some other monster, can't remember details) attack my buddy and "mark" him. At first, he was pissed off by the whole concept of "marking" ("Whaddayamean I *have* to attack that monster or take a penalty? What about my freedom as a roleplayer?" etc.). Naturally, a brief debate about the "MMO Mechanics" vs. "True Roleplaying" philosophy ensued.

But something funny happened. My buddy found that once the DM told him the monster had "marked" his character, he became so pissed off at the monster for doing the marking that he found he was actually motivated to *want* to attack that monster first. Instead of the Marked mechanic hindering roleplaying, it actually encouraged/created it. Instead of saying, "I'm marked? So now I have to pretend my character is mad at this monster and has to attack it? What about roleplaying?", he said, "You marked me? YOU marked ME? Why you little (#@$()*@. FEEL THE PAIN!"

I'm excited about trying this game out.

 

[Henry]

I wonder if he thought that the DM meant that the goblin had urinated on him? That is, technically, "marking" of a different sort.

 

[Simon Atavax]

I wonder if he thought that the DM meant that the goblin had urinated on him? That is, technically, "marking" of a different sort.

If that isn't a goblin power in the Monster Manual, it should be.

 

[Nymrohd]

My kobolds mark that way.

 

[Byronic]

I see marking more of a "My eyes are on you %$@, turn around and risk getting run through with my sword" meaning that if he does attack someone else he's going to have to defend himself at the same time.

 

[Angrydad]

IME so far I'm still having trouble finding a good way to explain the marking effects. Part of it is that I haven't really gotten much opportunity to play 4e but at the same time it seems too much like an MMO or FFXII style to me. How close does someone have to be to mark a target? If a melee fighter has to be within threatening range then I can see it making sense to an extent, but it ranger Joe can mark someone 30' away even though he's swinging a couple of swords at them I find it absurd. "Yeah, the guy over there with the sharp bit of metal? He hates your guts and wants to fight. Ignore the other dudes with sharp bits of metal between you and him, just go fight that guy."

 

[RefinedBean]

IME so far I'm still having trouble finding a good way to explain the marking effects. Part of it is that I haven't really gotten much opportunity to play 4e but at the same time it seems too much like an MMO or FFXII style to me. How close does someone have to be to mark a target? If a melee fighter has to be within threatening range then I can see it making sense to an extent, but it ranger Joe can mark someone 30' away even though he's swinging a couple of swords at them I find it absurd.

Fighters mark by making an attack, hit or miss. Paladins and Swordmage mark using a Minor Action.

For all of these, the easiest assumption is they're doing something in-combat to get the attention of an opponent. For example, the Paladin barks out a challenge on behalf of his God, or maybe the opponent gets a divine "inkling" that if they don't attack the Paladin, something nasty will result.

Rangers don't mark, they set quarries through minor actions; quick, intense study of an opponent and its weak points means it can kill it more efficiently.

Hope that helped, I love making up flavor for 4E stuff.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Fighters mark by making an attack, hit or miss. Paladins and Swordmage mark using a Minor Action.

For all of these, the easiest assumption is they're doing something in-combat to get the attention of an opponent. For example, the Paladin barks out a challenge on behalf of his God, or maybe the opponent gets a divine "inkling" that if they don't attack the Paladin, something nasty will result.

Rangers don't mark, they set quarries through minor actions; quick, intense study of an opponent and its weak points means it can kill it more efficiently.

Hope that helped, I love making up flavor for 4E stuff.

No, it doesn't. If there are five guys with nasty weapons between me and the guy yelling at me about my mom and her footwear, I'm NOT going to ignore them to go fight him. Also, if I'm doing something that will cause damage to an enemy at range, I don't want him to know that I'm the one doing it!

 

[RefinedBean]

Usually the enemy doesn't just rush at the Ranger who marked it, but I get where you're coming from.

However, DMs are usually good at their job, and there's a whole bunch of instances where enemies won't react to what's "marking" or "quarrying" them, and still behave logically. It's not a miniatures game, after all!

Heck, I'd rule that a quarried enemy doesn't know it's quarried...until it starts taking crazy amounts of damage.

Now, a fighter waving a big weapon in your face, a paladin starting to glow as he glares at you, and a Swordmage popping next to you with a burst of arcane power...I'm pretty sure the enemy is noticing all that.

 

[1Mac]

I can't speak for the swordmage, but for the paladin the sense of their marking is that the deity is actually invoked to single out the target. "In the name of Pelor I challenge thee, evildoer!" Hence the radiant damage and the fact that it can be done at range.