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

[Bagpuss]

I must say, *wow* but did they *not* remove fiddly, time-consuming situational modifiers.

It appears they did it only so they could add many more.

 

[hong]

Seems like they've reduced the *rolls* in combat but introduced whole new layers of tactical complexity at the same time. :\

Well, heavens above, it's not like we want to reduce it to a noob's game, now do we?

If you're going to keep track of all those conditional modifiers ('bloodied', 'combat advantage', 'marked' and who knows what else) you're going to need quite a lot of different types of accessories -- especially as you also occasionally need to "tag" a character with two (or more) conditions. For example, does Stephen use skulls to represent being *both* 'Bloodied' and 'Granting Combat Advantage'? Which color? Does he buy bigger beads for Giants or Dragons?

I wonder how many times a DM has to answer a player's "Which condition does this base/bead/die signify?"-question in combat. You might provide everyone with a reference sheet, but it takes time to memorize it by heart (and you typically only memorize those things which only concern your character anyway).

With these additional layers they're going to spend more time on their action than in 3E. Anyway, that's how I see it.

How much high-level 3E have you played?

 

[Plane Sailing]

I will be dumbfounded if it does, because it's...uh...dumb.

Whatever a Fighter does to 'mark' an Orc, he can do to a friend -- even more easily if the friend is willing. I can perhaps see that a Paladin could only mark people opposed to his alignment/god/cause/whatever Paladins do in 4e, but why would martial powers -- the result of training and discipline -- be so discriminating? Presumably, back at Fighter School, newbie fighters had to practice these arts on their fellow students (using training swords and padded armor, I'm sure). It's hard to imagine not being able to use a power which explicitly relies on extensive practice until your first real life-or-death fight.

The more times I have to say "You can't because the rules say you can't, that's why!", the more broken the game is. I still don't know how invisibility knows to end when you attack someone...non-magical stealth, sure, but why would a spell end when you attack someone directly but not cause them harm indirectly? But that's another thread...

I don't think I understand your point.

Fred is 'marked' by an enemy soldier, who intends to whap him at every opportunity.

His mate Tony tries to 'mark' him to supercede the enemy marking, but frankly Fred knows that Tony isn't a risk to him, isn't going to actually hurt him or anything while the enemy soldier is.

I don't see any problem with the PHB simply stating "you can't Mark an ally". It wouldn't make sense in a real-world situation; and this 'gamist' restriction only hinders 'gamist' loopholes that someone might try to find in the mechanical implementation of the game rule.

Regards,

 

[Thaumaturge]

<snip>A sleeping character is "helpless". I've never heard of making a reflex save while sleeping. (Fortitude? Your body fights off the poison. Will? Maybe...your mind is still active and your subconscious will defend you. But Reflex?)<snip>

Quick note:

Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing

From here.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Tuft]

It's the return of the Comfy Chair and the Soft Cushion.

The original joke was:

"How do you Detect Evil with 100% surety in 3rd ed? Well, the spell Detect Evil can be hidden from in a variety of ways, but you cannot hide from a Smite. So you put the target in the Comfy Chair, let the paladin wield the Soft Cushion, and smite away. If the target takes any bonus damage, well, then he is obviously evil. So having Cardinal Biggles of the Inquisition bring a Comfy Chair and a Soft Cushion makes perfekt sense."

Now you can use the Soft Cushion in new and interesting ways. Removing enemy Marks, for example, or getting an out-of-turn movement through your Rogue friend's Positioning Strike...

 

[Danzauker]

Honestly, I think it's too early to debate on whether a fighter can "out-mark" a paladin or not.

The article says that: IF you CAN put another mark on a creature, THEN the new mark supercedes the older.

It does NOT say HOW and WHEN a new mark can be put.

I expect the PHB to give more specific rules on the matter.

Maybe divine marks by nature can supercede martial ones, which I figure being based on intimidation, and fighter marks can not take over divine ones. Maybe warlock curses can supercede divine marks. Maybe there's some roll to make if one wants to take over an already existing mark. Who knows?

 

[Ipissimus]

I grok this. Great article. I've only got 3 cencerns, which I'll get into. But I can see where it's coming from. Thanks, Mordin, for your post, it assuaged alot of my worries.

1. I'd like clarification on Marking people at range. I hope that you actually have to threaten a target (borrowing the 3e term) in order for the Mark the be effective, excluding some tricks like the Paladin's divine abilities and the Swordmage's arcane marks.

2. Marking opponants shouldn't be much of a problem for PCs. People who play Wizards already have to keep track of bunches of stuff, this just gives a fighter something to do other than roll dice and feel inadiquette. DMs, however... it could get bad. I can see a situation where a party is fighting a squad of fighters, all with the ability to Mark and the DM having to keep track of which squad member's Marked who... could get confusing, even with markers.

3. I'm see-sawing over the 'overlapping Marks' issue. On one hand, I understand it's a game and even simulationist games aren't reality. On the other hand, fighting multiple opponants in real life is quite deadly. On the third hand (my mutation), I hope that combat advantage from flanking more than makes up for the lack when 2 defenders gang up on a foe.

That being said, I can think of plenty of cinematic examples of Marking that make me think this is a cool addition to the game.

After the death of an important NPC noted in his background, Mad Martigan calls out General Kail, Marking him. Kail returns the favour, giving Martigan the universal sign for 'come get some'. Both of them are out of range with thier weapons, so they disembowl a few peons that get in their way, Kail retreating up some stairs to gain combat advantage from high ground.

or

Qui-Gon steps forward as Darth Maul reveals himself. Drawing their lightsabers, Qui-gon (the more powerful fighter) Marks his opponant. Darth Maul marks Qui-gon in return but realizes that two Jedi may overmatch him. Thus he retreats, enguaging Qui-Gon and doing everything in his power to keep Obi-Wan from flanking.

I'll admit, though, if Marks stacked it'd give Darth Maul (or a BBEG in the same position) even more insentive to separate his two opponants. But either way is far more interesting than 'I roll... I hit... I miss... I do x damage... next round... rinse, repeat...'

 

[Tuft]

DMs, however... it could get bad. I can see a situation where a party is fighting a squad of fighters, all with the ability to Mark and the DM having to keep track of which squad member's Marked who... could get confusing, even with markers.

Could even be used for effect... "One of those lizardmen over there just marked you. Which one? Well, can you tell the difference between one lizardman and the next?"

 

[Nom]

I think there's several ways of adding 'defend your ally' mechanics without marks.

Some of these already exist. Others are "marks" by another name.

Zones of control, anyone? Classic old mechanic.

That's what an AoO/threatened area is. And it doesn't work very well in isolation when combined with high mobility and turn-based activity.

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.

... which is basically marking except you mark an ally rather than an opponent. It's also a little trickier to implement because of the interaction with reach - you need to be in reach of the guy that's attacking your marked ally.


Marking could be seen as an independent status effect on the target. However, it makes a lot more sense to think of it as a status effect on the marker that is applied to the target. It's not that the fighter has (past tense) hit you; it's that he is attacking you and if you try to do something tangential he'll land another strike. A mark is thus a sort of upgraded threatened area.

My main concern with non-stacking marks is solo monsters. If marking drives further effects, then multiple defenders vs a solo monster might get in each others' way. I'll assume that there's a mechanic for dealing with this.

 

[hong]

3. I'm see-sawing over the 'overlapping Marks' issue. On one hand, I understand it's a game and even simulationist games aren't reality. On the other hand, fighting multiple opponants in real life is quite deadly. On the third hand (my mutation), I hope that combat advantage from flanking more than makes up for the lack when 2 defenders gang up on a foe.

D&D has historically been pretty easy on people who are outnumbered. Compare to other games like GURPS or even Exalted, where you can basically only defend from 1 or 2 enemies at a time, and the others get (almost) free hits on you.