Problems with marks?

[keterys]

So, it appears that marks are a particular turnoff for a number of people. Particularly when monsters do it. To be clear, I'm talking actual marks and the marked condition - hunter's quarry and warlock's curse can have its own discussion

So I'm kinda hoping ya'll would brainstorm a bit with me on the pros and cons of marks and ways to replace them. I don't necessarily plan to do so myself, but I'd like to have a reasonable offering for a replacement - for PCs and monsters.

I believe most objections to marks fall into two camps:
1) These are a pain to track
2) This penalty is unrealistic / stupid / annoying

The primary benefit to marking is that it allows a 'tanking' aspect, where a target is penalized for ignoring a particular soldier or defender. The secondary benefit is that it stops multiple soldiers / defenders from creating a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" situation.

While it seems pretty viable to remove the 'marked' condition by replacing it with some other benefit (for example, what if paladins had an immediate interrupt to block X damage to an ally within 5 squares instead of dealing X damage, and perhaps added Y damage to attacks against an enemy that hit one of its allies since the paladin's last turn) - still lets it do its job of defending. The problem is that secondary issue of what happens if you have two paladins...

For monsters, it's possible to just change marks into a brief penalty to attacks, free attacks (like a fighter), and a host of slow/immobilize/knockdown type effects... but removing the choice of movement is bad as it makes combat more stagnant and you hit the 'What if there's 3 soldiers' problem again. I'd definitely like a good option for 'There's a penalty for not attacking this guy, but it may be worth it'.

Anyhow, this is probably already in TLDR territory... but I would ask that you refrain from bringing up inherent objections to the defending concept that marking is trying to enable from a "Don't make D&D into an MMO" angle or similar thread. I just want to discuss alternate systems to obtain a similar result or other methods to make it easier

 

[Blackeagle]

2) This penalty is unrealistic / stupid / annoying

I think half of this problem is just the name that they chose. If they'd called it something like "Engaged" instead of marked, then it would be pretty clear that the reason the target takes a penalty to attack anyone else isn't some sort of mystical effect, it's because the fighter is trying to split the target's skull open with an axe and he's very good at it!

 

[Mort_Q]

Penalties are by definition going to be annoying. Unrealistic, as was said, is all in the metagame. How do you explain it? Goading?

There is a thread around where someone Frostmarrow suggested giving free attacks instead of marking. I'll see if I can find a link.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=226738

 

[kerrybrn]

If they'd called it something like "Engaged" instead of marked, then it would be pretty clear

But... why would a fighter want to marry the opponent he/she is doing battle with???

 

[Vendark]

Penalties are by definition going to be annoying. Unrealistic, as was said, is all in the metagame. How do you explain it? Goading?

I think of it as being akin to "hearing footsteps" in American football. It's a lot harder to catch the ball/hit the wizard when you know that the brutal safety/fighter is charging in to take your head off.

 

[Mort_Q]

I have no problem with marking... but I can see why others might.

There are lots of ways to explain it, and it doesn't have to be the same every time. Whatever works in that scene/encounter is good enough.

The problem is, some people just don't want seem to want to get it.

 

[Keoki]

But... why would a fighter want to marry the opponent he/she is doing battle with???

So he can continue to battle it the rest of his life

 

[keterys]

I have no problem with marking... but I can see why others might.

There are lots of ways to explain it, and it doesn't have to be the same every time. Whatever works in that scene/encounter is good enough.

The problem is, some people just don't want seem to want to get it.

I'm fine with them, but I can definitely see where they wouldn't work well for some players (like, they'll just forget that monsters have marked them for instance, or don't want to track who their fighter has marked) or DMs. I do think there's more than just 'getting it' involved. It's an investment of effort that some people aren't willing to make or the exact effect (-2 to attacks against other targets) doesn't make sense to them.

 

[Mort_Q]

I do think there's more than just 'getting it' involved.

I understand that... that's why I used the word seem.

It's an investment of effort that some people aren't willing to make or the exact effect (-2 to attacks against other targets) doesn't make sense to them.

Any new rule system is going to take some effort to internalize, and it is more difficult if the new rules don't make sense on some level or another.

It might make more sense if marking instead gave the marked opponent a +2 to hit the marker. This would have a similar overall effect, it doesn't protect the other party members as well, and may have other unbalancing affects towards the marker.

We don't know what mechanics they tried and discarded. I'm assuming that this one isn't the first one, or even the last, but rather the one that worked best within the overall structure of the rules. Maybe I'm wrong. No matter either way. I can make the rules make sense in my head if I want them too, and .... I do.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have to admit, while I'm crazy about 4E, marking has got to be my least favourite new rule. Much like AoOs in 3E (4E OAs are much better by not having such a long list of what causes them and what doesn't) marking is simply too much effort for too little gain.

Most of the time, the mark isn't important because the marker and markee simply square off in melee, as it's intended. I'd say that the fighter's ability to get a free basic against an adjacent opponent who attacks an ally works much better (both in imagery and in simplicity) so I would propose that would be a better ability for monsters who mark than a mark itself, but seeing as fighters get BOTH, I'm not sure what you'd replace the fighter's mark with.

The paladin's mark is almost easier to keep track of than the fighter's because there is more incentive to do so.

Fitz