D&D 4E SRM Marking Marked and Other 4Eisms

[Lizard]

I don't think warlocks will mark people, from what they said it's only a defender power. Of course you could replace warlock with paladin and your example works fine (well with somewhat different flavor text), but I don't think they WANT to make marks weaker....they are supposed to be major class powers with dramatic effects.

I appreciate that, but as I see it, they had two choices:
a)Make marks weaker (or make them daily powers), so that 'stacking' marks wouldn't be a problem.
b)Handwave the issue away by saying 'marks don't stack, one removes the other', making it much harder to add decent flavor text and opening the door to exploits -- removing an enemy's mark by marking an ally.

They (seemingly) chose 'b'. Why?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think come time for the PHB to be out. I hope that in the combat section, WoTC goes indept with how to unite together and meld into one nice cohesive whole the various combat abilities and how they would be reflected in-game.

 

[AZRogue]

Marking. The new out of combat Intimidate.

 

[fafhrd]

I think there's several ways of adding 'defend your ally' mechanics without marks. Zones of control, anyone? Classic old mechanic. Or any number of "I declare I am defending X, if anyone attacks X, I get a free swing at him which can do any number of things" powers. For example, a fighter declares he's defending the wizard. Anyone the fighter threatens who targets the wizard suffers a -2 to all attacks as the fighter gets in the way and otherwise interferes. If three people all decide to defend the wizard...the wizard is really well defended. So it goes.

No question there are other ways to implement. They opted for the "You guys handle the orcs, I'll try and keep the big guy busy" approach rather than the "you, stay here and I'll cover you" version. I'm okay with it.

What I CAN'T see -- and this is the inevitable "SAY WHAT?" moment -- is how the warlock's curse stops the fighter's focus, or vice-versa. If stacking marks is unbalancing -- make marks weaker or impose conditions on their use.

I agree. With the little we know, I'd prefer that the first to mark someone got precedence. Maybe I'm a fool, but I'm going to trust that they have their reasons.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I appreciate that, but as I see it, they had two choices:
a)Make marks weaker (or make them daily powers), so that 'stacking' marks wouldn't be a problem.
b)Handwave the issue away by saying 'marks don't stack, one removes the other', making it much harder to add decent flavor text and opening the door to exploits -- removing an enemy's mark by marking an ally.

They (seemingly) chose 'b'. Why?

Yeah it does seem kinda odd, I guess maybe they felt that by making it weaker it would unbalance a ordinary defender, striker, leader, controller group? Since there be only on defender, only reason I can think of.

 

[Fifth Element]

But for some reason they have a penalty on their attacks, and magically know who is inflicting that penalty. If all it does is provoke opportunity attacks from the marker, then it makes sense, but if it is imposing wacky penalties for no reason, I'm a little uncomfortable with it.

I agree with Voss here. Wait, what?

I'm hoping they have some nice flavour text in the PHB to describe the more gamist mechanics like this one. I don't mind the concept as long as it makes sense in-game.

 

[hong]

I appreciate that, but as I see it, they had two choices:
a)Make marks weaker (or make them daily powers), so that 'stacking' marks wouldn't be a problem.
b)Handwave the issue away by saying 'marks don't stack, one removes the other', making it much harder to add decent flavor text and opening the door to exploits -- removing an enemy's mark by marking an ally.

They (seemingly) chose 'b'. Why?

Because making marks weaker brings you right back to Dodge.

 

[Fifth Element]

and opening the door to exploits -- removing an enemy's mark by marking an ally.

People keep mentioning this. I will be absolutely dumbfounded if the PHB does not contain text to the effect of "You cannot mark an ally."

 

[Hussar]

(Consider, for instance, that Wally the Warlord is dominated by a mind flayer. Fred the fighter wants to make sure Wally doesn't go postal on Willy the Wizard, so Fred marks Wally to try to force him to attack someone who can take a swing or two. Saying "You can't do that!" deprives characters of an important option. Not to mention that roleplaying wise, PCs can and do come to blows. It would be a very odd thing to say a power can affect a PC when there's a debate over the ethics of orc torture which led to interparty violence, but not under other circumstances.)

Umm, that doesn't work. The dominated Warlord is no longer an ally.

Do we honestly need the game to define ally vs enemy? Ally is anyone I say they are. Enemy is anyone I say. And, yup, that's open to abuse, but, if you have players abusing that at your table, then no amount of mechanics is going to save your game.

 

[olshanski]

Is this something that the bad guys can do?

An enemy paladin (say immune to illusions) can mark your illusionist warlock?

How does marking effect spellcasting?

Can a blindfolded paladin mark a medusa and save the rest of the party from being targeted by the old turn-to-stone trick?