Fallen Seraph
First Post
I think when that happens FireLance the enemy just goes, "oh come on! why are you just picking on me!"
D&D 4E SRM Marking Marked and Other 4Eisms
- Thread starter Scholar & Brutalman
- Start date
Darth Cyric
First Post
If Thicket of Blades is anything at all like it is in Tome of Battle, the ongoing effect of the Fighter's marking strike is that if the target attacks anyone else while the Fighter's in range they're going to eat an Attack of Opportunity.FireLance said:
Then there's more advanced powers such as where the Fighter is supposed to be able to follow his mark to the death.
I'd say that the fighter interferes with the other's ability. A mark requires a certain degree of cooperation from the enemy, even if it's unconcious and detrimental. The fighter is *forcing* the enemy to focus on him. Two people using the same ability don't give the enemy the special sort of focus necessary for the power to work, turning things back into an unfocused melee.
TwinBahamut
First Post
I was going to post a solid in-game justification of why all the marking things make sense, but it seems a WotC employee beat me to it, so it seems unnecessary now...
Anyways, I like the idea of being able to use special attacks only against Marked targets. In fact, I just like the idea behind Markedness, so this whole article is great, if you ask me.
Fortunately for me, my preferred graphical representation of battle, a chalkboard or whiteboard with an initiative table and battle map drawn on it, could display pretty much all of the new effects like bloodied or markedness with no real problem, which is a good thing.
Anyways, I like the idea of being able to use special attacks only against Marked targets. In fact, I just like the idea behind Markedness, so this whole article is great, if you ask me.
Fortunately for me, my preferred graphical representation of battle, a chalkboard or whiteboard with an initiative table and battle map drawn on it, could display pretty much all of the new effects like bloodied or markedness with no real problem, which is a good thing.
Jhulae
First Post
FireLance said:It's a good point, but I do recall an early playtest report about how being marked by both a paladin and a fighter was too effective a tactic, so the limit of one mark at a time was probably done for game balance reasons. Now, we just have to think of a believable (if not realistic) way to explain it.
Gee.. How about if the party was using, oh I don't know... teamwork? I know it'd be a stretch for most groups (it would be for mine, anyway), but, the characters should have *some* idea of how to work together even if the players don't.
FireLance
Legend
If a fighter, a paladin and a swordmage walk into a cavern and find themselves facing a solo red dragon instead of a joke, the question of "why can't all three of us mark it?" is going to arise - and we've already got rough answers for why paladin marks overwrite fighter marks, and vice-versa. Now we just need to do the same for fighter/swordmage and paladin/swordmage.Jhulae said:
Darth Cyric
First Post
Paladin/swordmage would be similar to paladin/fighter: the swordmage's arcane mark violated the sanctity of the paladin's divine mark.FireLance said:If a fighter, a paladin and a swordmage walk into a cavern and find themselves facing a solo red dragon instead of a joke, the question of "why can't all three of us mark it?" is going to arise - and we've already got rough answers for why paladin marks overwrite fighter marks, and vice-versa. Now we just need to do the same for fighter/swordmage and paladin/swordmage.
Swordmage overwriting fighter could be that the swordmage's mark is an enchantment-type spell. Fighter overwriting swordmage would be a bit trickier (maybe simply a getting smacked out of it type deal).
AZRogue
Explorer
DnD has always suffered from rules that make no sense when put into real world terms. Most of these we've dealt with so long that even our flimsy descriptions and justifications seem to make sense. We've forgiven them over the years because they are useful. So, it isn't the end of the world to find a rule that isn't easily explained at first glance provided that it helps promote good gameplay and an effective resolution mechanic.
Now, in the case of Marking, from what we know so far, we can easily, with a little thought, create in game explanations that will serve (at least for any of the groups I play in). Let's go into a bit more detail.
Marking seems like a very useful mechanic and it puts a little lead in the Defender's pencil, which is a good thing. It's vastly, vastly better than a universal "taunt" ability where the Defenders just force the enemy to attack them. You know the boards would have crashed with the nerd rage unleashed if that would have happened.
Let's look at all this in more detail:
1. Marking. Marking a target forces the enemy to take a penalty for attacking anyone other than the person that Marked him, whether a combat penalty or actual damage, as with the Paladin. That's good. It forces a choice on the enemy while still allowing the Defender to exert some influence when protecting his teammates. Useful, functional, and forces a difficult choice. I think it's a score. Introduce some Abilities that require your target to be Marked and ignoring you and you have some hella fun in store.
2. The Explanation. How to explain this? I don't think it's that hard, now that I've thought about it for a bit. I'm sure others can come up with even more satisfying answers. The Paladin, I think, will be the easiest to explain as his power source is Divine. And the lord works in mysterious ways. Or whatever. A dozen simple Paladin edicts and codes spring to mind which would be easily believable.
The Fighter is a bit more difficult. Thinking about how I would imagine a Fighter Marking a target helps me arrive at my explanation, though: I see a Fighter marking a target by threatening it, either by directly dealing damage or by some other means that could be treated roughly like an Intimidate, or, basically, calling him out.
The target is intimidated by the Fighter and takes the penalty because, if he tries to attack another party member, he is wary and busy keeping one eye on the Fighter. He's less effective. He doesn't find it very easy to concentrate on another target when that Fighter is back there and that fighter scared the crap out of him. Or he can choose to attack the Fighter directly and focus more completely on the object of his fear.
3. Marking Allies. This wouldn't easily work on an ally because your ally isn't really going to believe you mean him any harm. Unless you started attacking the crap out of him. I would allow it then but that would open a whole other situation that would probably result in one dead Fighter the next time his teammate brewed the tea. So Marking your allies isn't something you can normally do. It doesn't make any sense, as he wouldn't believe you.
4. One Mark at a Time. As for only one Mark being active at a time, well, the guy can only be supremely intimidated by one person at a time.
These explanations might not be enough for most people, but they will serve me fine and, I must admit, will even be satisfying and add a nice dimension to things that I think my Players will really enjoy.
I'm not very happy with the conditions we're keeping track of, but it's not that, that bad, I guess. The Defenders will keep track of whom they are Marking. I'll keep track of the Bloodied monsters, and each player will keep track of themselves when they're Bloodied. I think poker chips will be cheap and easy markers for this.
Now, in the case of Marking, from what we know so far, we can easily, with a little thought, create in game explanations that will serve (at least for any of the groups I play in). Let's go into a bit more detail.
Marking seems like a very useful mechanic and it puts a little lead in the Defender's pencil, which is a good thing. It's vastly, vastly better than a universal "taunt" ability where the Defenders just force the enemy to attack them. You know the boards would have crashed with the nerd rage unleashed if that would have happened.
Let's look at all this in more detail:
1. Marking. Marking a target forces the enemy to take a penalty for attacking anyone other than the person that Marked him, whether a combat penalty or actual damage, as with the Paladin. That's good. It forces a choice on the enemy while still allowing the Defender to exert some influence when protecting his teammates. Useful, functional, and forces a difficult choice. I think it's a score. Introduce some Abilities that require your target to be Marked and ignoring you and you have some hella fun in store.
2. The Explanation. How to explain this? I don't think it's that hard, now that I've thought about it for a bit. I'm sure others can come up with even more satisfying answers. The Paladin, I think, will be the easiest to explain as his power source is Divine. And the lord works in mysterious ways. Or whatever. A dozen simple Paladin edicts and codes spring to mind which would be easily believable.
The Fighter is a bit more difficult. Thinking about how I would imagine a Fighter Marking a target helps me arrive at my explanation, though: I see a Fighter marking a target by threatening it, either by directly dealing damage or by some other means that could be treated roughly like an Intimidate, or, basically, calling him out.
The target is intimidated by the Fighter and takes the penalty because, if he tries to attack another party member, he is wary and busy keeping one eye on the Fighter. He's less effective. He doesn't find it very easy to concentrate on another target when that Fighter is back there and that fighter scared the crap out of him. Or he can choose to attack the Fighter directly and focus more completely on the object of his fear.
3. Marking Allies. This wouldn't easily work on an ally because your ally isn't really going to believe you mean him any harm. Unless you started attacking the crap out of him. I would allow it then but that would open a whole other situation that would probably result in one dead Fighter the next time his teammate brewed the tea. So Marking your allies isn't something you can normally do. It doesn't make any sense, as he wouldn't believe you.
4. One Mark at a Time. As for only one Mark being active at a time, well, the guy can only be supremely intimidated by one person at a time.
These explanations might not be enough for most people, but they will serve me fine and, I must admit, will even be satisfying and add a nice dimension to things that I think my Players will really enjoy.
I'm not very happy with the conditions we're keeping track of, but it's not that, that bad, I guess. The Defenders will keep track of whom they are Marking. I'll keep track of the Bloodied monsters, and each player will keep track of themselves when they're Bloodied. I think poker chips will be cheap and easy markers for this.
Last edited:
