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

[Mallus]

I wonder if he thought that the DM meant that the goblin had urinated on him?

On a similar note... this is the explanation for how my Dragonborn paladin's "mark" works. I realize it's supposed to be some sort of divine curse, but my version amuses the hell out of my group.

"His paladin's 'marking' ability involves him passing his sword under his cloaca, spraying it with his semen, and then flinging it foes. This, naturally, humiliates and enrages them. In addition, Dragonborn semen also has some mildly hallucinogenic properties, like the skin of certain frogs.

Scholars believe that this unorthodox combat technique has it's origins in Dragonborn reproductive biology. They conjecture that chemical agents in Dragonborn ejaculate sicken 'marked' females if they attempt to mate with, or even approach, other males."

 

[lutecius]

Because strikers focus on a no-nonsense fighting style that's all about hitting someone where it hurts, while defenders (particularly fighters) are more about distracting foes.

psychological effect then.
But foes are automatically affected by the last fighter who "distracted" them, and him only, no matter how trained, wise or intelligent they are compared to said fighter?

hmm...

 

[DogBackward]

Think of it this way; go off and do something. Anything; homework, fighting, video games, whatever you feel like. Now, try and do that with some guy sitting behind you, constantly smacking you in the back of the head, and incessantly yelling at you. Probably flinging a bit of spittle in your direction in the process.

No matter how trained, wise or intelligent you are, that will distract the hell out of you. And your performance will suffer for it.

And yeah, the reason only one can mark at a time? Balance, for one, which is something that can't be ignored. Also, most people that get wound up, annoyed and distracted like that will tend to concentrate their ire on the last one to annoy them. Watch a bunch of kids surrounding someone with the taunts and jabs and the like. Chances are, poor kid'll be spinning in circles trying to get one in on the last guy to mess with 'im.

Really, go live with a family of 7 kids for a few years. You'll understand a Fighter's Marking perfectly by then, trust me.

 

[Ktulu]

The reason two marks don't stack is the same as why two combat advantages don't stack. No same ability or penalty can double up.

Being dazed and prone does not grant me a +4 to attack you, only plust 2.

Why doesn't a striker mark? Because he's trying to get that one good shot, the one that hurts the most. He's waiting for the opportune strike.

The fighter, however, is constantly hammering away at your shield, sword, leg, face, body, chest, and will not let up. Thus, you gain an -2 to attack other opponents due to being distracted.

 

[Nymrohd]

Plus I think strikers to have a few marking powers. So they can mark, it is just not their main thing.

 

[That One Guy]

psychological effect then.
But foes are automatically affected by the last fighter who "distracted" them, and him only, no matter how trained, wise or intelligent they are compared to said fighter?

hmm...

Mechanics. The flat out answer is that in testing the -2s stacked and it was found to ruin game balance. While I'll use the explanation of 'whoever marked most recently is the one who is messing with the monster to get its ire...' the simple fact of the matter is that the game had to sacrifice realism for playability. A clever DM would allow two marks to be in effect, but the penalty to be only -2. However, a fighter, paladin, and swordmage would brutally lock down a solo.

...actually, I wonder how bad that would be for gameplay. I know a -6 (or -4 if it was vs. a marker) was too powerful mechanically, but I wonder if letting the nonpenalty effects stacking would imbalance the game.

 

[Staffan]

Another way of looking at it:

Conditions don't stack. Just like you don't get +4 to hit a dazed, prone opponent (because you only get the Combat Advantage bonus once), you don't get -4 to hit because you're marked twice. A case could be made (in the absence of the "new marks overwrite old" rule) that someone who's marked by both a paladin and a fighter would have -2 to hit regardless of whom he attacks, because if he attacks the paladin the fighter's mark triggers, and if he attacks the fighter the paladin's mark triggers.

However, that defeats the point of marks. The idea is to encourage the marked opponent to attack the marker, by penalizing him for attacking anyone else. If he gets the penalty regardless of whom he attacks, he might as well go after the soft targets anyway.