Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tonester" data-source="post: 4367283" data-attributes="member: 71788">I totally agree ^.&nbsp; The entire mechanic of &quot;mark&quot; is the same that &quot;taunt&quot; serves in popular CRPGs.&nbsp; The idea is to punish enemies who don't focus their attention on the defender (Paladin).&nbsp; And to be quite honest, I probably WOULD force a Wizard to incur such a penalty if they made an attack that was not at the Paladin.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; For a couple of reasons:1) A paladin has to get pretty close to DC someone.2) If the paladin is caught in the burst/area, then there would be no -2 penalty to the roll against the paladin but there would be a -2 to every other target the wizard had to roll for.3) The wizard only takes damage on the FIRST attack... not each one.4) The DC ends if the paladin doesn't attack or end their turn next to the Wizard - something that should rarely happen if a Wizard is playing correctly (unless there is a warlord and terrain involved)I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous, and like I said originally... its a pretty close call.&nbsp; However, looking at the spirit and the intent of what DC and Mark are supposed to do - it just seems inappropriate to me that there are attacks that can circumvent this mechanic.&nbsp; I would rule in favor of DC on this one until WoTC clarifies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tonester, post: 4367283, member: 71788"] I totally agree ^. The entire mechanic of "mark" is the same that "taunt" serves in popular CRPGs. The idea is to punish enemies who don't focus their attention on the defender (Paladin). And to be quite honest, I probably WOULD force a Wizard to incur such a penalty if they made an attack that was not at the Paladin. Why? For a couple of reasons: 1) A paladin has to get pretty close to DC someone. 2) If the paladin is caught in the burst/area, then there would be no -2 penalty to the roll against the paladin but there would be a -2 to every other target the wizard had to roll for. 3) The wizard only takes damage on the FIRST attack... not each one. 4) The DC ends if the paladin doesn't attack or end their turn next to the Wizard - something that should rarely happen if a Wizard is playing correctly (unless there is a warlord and terrain involved) I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous, and like I said originally... its a pretty close call. However, looking at the spirit and the intent of what DC and Mark are supposed to do - it just seems inappropriate to me that there are attacks that can circumvent this mechanic. I would rule in favor of DC on this one until WoTC clarifies. [/QUOTE]

Verification