Ranged Strikers - more "aggro" mechanics?

[Imban]

So both the Ranger and Warlock, from the playtest, have mechanics which allow them to "mark" the nearest enemy, who takes significantly more damage from anything they do from that point forth - +1d8 for the ranger, and +1d6 for the Warlock. The principal reason I can see for why these target-marks only work on the nearest enemy is to discourage ranged strikers from attacking "back row" characters, and by cutting a huge chunk out of the damage they deal if they try, make it tactically inviable to do so. As such, even archers will typically fire upon the hard targets in the front, rather than the squishies in the back row.

At least in my experience, I've found this to be... incompatible with how tactics have always worked. Yes, it makes it easier for defenders to defend their party's controllers and strikers, but in a way that, much more than marking already does, creates a totally artificial tactical situation.

Because, with the way it is now, the tactically viable things for archers/warlocks to do, in 90% of cases, is either fire at the tank and ignore the squishies he's protecting, despite having a bow / shooting magical energy, or dash through the enemy lines *with a bow* to mark a squishy. Unless someone's about to drop, it rarely makes sense to do otherwise.

This seems like a very undesirable state of affairs to me. As far as I can see, the obvious house rule to change this would be to allow ranged strikers to mark any target of their choosing, perhaps with some additional restriction to discourage them from changing targets every round. The implications of this would be that ranged attackers can target the vulnerable "back row" members of the party, which I consider the point of having ranged attackers in the first place.

Any alternative viewpoints, explanations for why they may have chosen this implementation, et cetera are welcome.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Ehh, I don't see it as being that big of an issue, since your still dealing out a good chunk of damage even without hitting the nearest foe.

It also too me, makes sense. It makes sense that it would be easier to hit the foe closest to you, especially in a hectic and fast fight, with everyone moving around, dust being kicked up into the air, etc. It would be easier to hit the enemy closest to you and hit him well, thus more damage.

 

[hong]

One neat house rule I saw here was that you can only range-mark someone you have uninterrupted LoS to.

 

[Imban]

Ehh, I don't see it as being that big of an issue, since your still dealing out a good chunk of damage even without hitting the nearest foe.

It also too me, makes sense. It makes sense that it would be easier to hit the foe closest to you, especially in a hectic and fast fight, with everyone moving around, dust being kicked up into the air, etc. It would be easier to hit the enemy closest to you and hit him well, thus more damage.

Well, once you've targeted a foe, he remains targeted forever, even if he's the furthest-away foe, so it's more that it's easiest to hit the enemy who you have hate on, even if two rogues are all up in your grill with sneak attacks right then.

Furthermore, at least half of the fights I've ever been in in D&D open with the heroes (metaphorically or literally) kicking down the door and seeing the enemy formation, then fighting. With the current Ranger and Warlock, there's no "hectic and fast close-quarters fight" going on yet, but I still have to aim for the closest guy - and he remains the guy I get a ton more damage against even if he turned out to be a squishy who flees to the back of the battle on his first turn.

So to me, it fails from a believability perspective pretty hard, too. But that isn't why I started the thread - I was talking about its implications on play, which I think suck.

One neat house rule I saw here was that you can only range-mark someone you have uninterrupted LoS to.

That's a pretty good idea - removing the Ranger's "mark" and just saying he gets +1d8 damage against anyone he has an uninterrupted line of fire to (something that's really darn easy to verify on MapTool, at least) might be a great solution for this.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

At least in my experience, I've found this to be... incompatible with how tactics have always worked. Yes, it makes it easier for defenders to defend their party's controllers and strikers, but in a way that, much more than marking already does, creates a totally artificial tactical situation.

Actually, I think it opens up some interesting tactical options.

"Do I keep pounding on the dudes up front, or do I position myself so that I can mark the pain-in-the-ass controller back there, and potentially take him out more quickly?"

 

[LordArchaon]

Actually, I think it opens up some interesting tactical options.

"Do I keep pounding on the dudes up front, or do I position myself so that I can mark the pain-in-the-ass controller back there, and potentially take him out more quickly?"

Totally agree, and that's why strikers are focused on mobility.
If they weren't meant to go behind the enemy lines, a melee striker would have the same (and even bigger) issue of not getting to attack the back-row controllers.

 

[baberg]

Actually, I think it opens up some interesting tactical options.

"Do I keep pounding on the dudes up front, or do I position myself so that I can mark the pain-in-the-ass controller back there, and potentially take him out more quickly?"

I'm with you. The mark doesn't mean you can only attack that person, it just means that you get a little bonus damage when you do. So the question becomes "Is the extra damage to the closest (and likely heaviest armored) foe worth the fact that he's just going to be stood up by the cleric behind him? Or is it worth taking a small damage decrease in order to make that cleric move around a bit to avoid me?"

Additional damage is nice, but it's not always the most tactically sound maneuver.

 

[Voss]

Well, once you've targeted a foe, he remains targeted forever, even if he's the furthest-away foe, so it's more that it's easiest to hit the enemy who you have hate on, even if two rogues are all up in your grill with sneak attacks right then.

Well, for the ranger, its targeted until you target someone else. You can change it.

Furthermore, at least half of the fights I've ever been in in D&D open with the heroes (metaphorically or literally) kicking down the door and seeing the enemy formation, then fighting. With the current Ranger and Warlock, there's no "hectic and fast close-quarters fight" going on yet, but I still have to aim for the closest guy - and he remains the guy I get a ton more damage against even if he turned out to be a squishy who flees to the back of the battle on his first turn.

Both sample characters are fairly manueverable. The warlock, particularly, is rewarded if he moves around a lot. If adventure design actually stays away from the cramped 20x30 room, this will be fairly important on both sides. And if you only have one defender, it will be rather difficult to keep the strikers/controller out of the fray.

So to me, it fails from a believability perspective pretty hard, too. But that isn't why I started the thread - I was talking about its implications on play, which I think suck.

Whats the believability issue? The 'nearest enemy' bit? I can sort of understand that, but the switching makes sense to me- the ranger can switch at will, but the warlock has essentially promised the victim's soul/life/power to his patrons. They' aren't necessarily going to be understanding about, 'No, not him, maybe this guy'.

I think it works out pretty well in play. Choices are always good for tactics, and choices with consequences are even better. The warlock does fairly well circling the melee and blasting away at the at the brutes and soldiers. My experiments with the sample material show that the arcane casters (on both sides, PC and Monster) do well against opposing melee folks, while trying to stay out of range, since they can ignore the buffed AC, while the melee folks will shred a spellcaster they can pin down in melee.

 

[Imban]

Totally agree, and that's why strikers are focused on mobility.
If they weren't meant to go behind the enemy lines, a melee striker would have the same (and even bigger) issue of not getting to attack the back-row controllers.

Er, a melee striker (rogue, since that's all we have right now) just gets his bonus for attacking anyone he has combat advantage against. More to the point, he's a melee guy, so of course he should be making contact with the enemy lines, and as a rogue he should be slipping through them.

It seems more than a little odd to expect an archer to be slipping through enemy lines to get as close as possible to his enemy. I mean... archer. That's not what archers do.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

For tactics to be meaningful, you need to have hard choices to make.

In 3e, the archer who is shooting at the soft target in the rear instead of the high HP, high AC target in front may think he is being tactical. He is not. He's on auto-pilot. What kind of idiot woulnd't do that?

In the same situation, these marking mechanics along with the new monster design philosophy mix it up.

Does the ranger mark the Elite brute monster in front and try to help the fighter to take it out as fast as possible?

Or does he forgo his marking power to shoot at the annoying artillery monster who slows down whoever he hits but has less than 25% of the HP of the Elite Brute?

+1D8 is cool, but he'll probably kill that artillery monster by himself without the +1d8 faster than he and the fighter would have killed the brute with the +1D8. Or do they? Hmm, it's close, isn't it? Oh, but if the wizard helps with magic missile, it's no contest... But shouldn't he try to take out the two lesser sldier in close rank on the front?

Or wait, does the ramger take the risk of maneuvering toward the archer? Use his nimbleness and speed to get close enough to mark him so that he can kill him even faster? But what are his odds of survival if he does that? Hmm, can the Warlord come along to run interference, I wonder...

Decisions, decisions, decisions...