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

[Ipissimus]

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?"

Hmmmm... I see your point but I wouldn't play it like that. It's be pretty obvious which Lizardman was gonna try and shish-kebab you if you take your eyes off him.

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.

I agree 100%, hong. And, honestly, I don't think that's a bad thing for DnD. After all, your party's usually outnumbered or outgunned. That's been true from way back in Basic and 1e. And Exalted's system is supposed to work better in duels, IMO, which is also a good thing. I honestly do think flanking rules will make up for 1 Mark at a time in 4E.

What I should have mentioned is the other, far more deadly, combo: Defender/Striker. Fighter Marks enemy, Rogue flanks... ouch, much bigger ouch than 2 defenders whacking away, particularly when the Rogue does it again next round without pain of reprisal unless the bad guy's willing to soak whatever the Mark does to him.

Well, that would be on a power by power basis. I suspect a lot of fighter and paladin powers will be melee-only whether the mark the target or not (since ranged powers are more of a striker/controller thing), but probably a few won't be -whether any of those include marking remains to be seen.

Ah, very true, glass, shoulda thought of that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's a lot easier to keep track of booleans than numbers. It seems that many 4e mechanics are gated or triggered.

"This gives me +1, that gives me -3, this is +4, but only with my sword, unless it's a Tuesday" is more complex for most people than "If A is true, I can use attack Y. If B is true, I can use attack Z. Both A and B are true; I will pick an attack."

Or maybe it's just because I've been a programmer for 30 years. I'd rather have my options be dictated by tactics then try to juggle ever-changing numerical modifiers, and if that's the path 4e took, it will succeed in 'simplfiying' combat without removing tactical depth.

I agree, but I am also a trained programmer (but with only ~10 years experience, if I count the computer science courses in school .).

I think I've rarely seen a Rogue forgetting to roll his sneak attack damage against a flanked target, but I've often seen any kind of fighter forgetting to apply his +2 attack bonus for flanking in his calculation of the end attack roll result.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Dice and legos, man. Dice and legos.

M&Ms make super monsters. Eat what you kill.

 

[Cadfan]

Hmm?

If I end up in a situation where I and an 'enemy' are flanking a PC, and I decide I want to play 'find Fred's spleen' (mebbe he cheated at cards), I would expect to get the +2 flank bonus on him. Hell, Fred should be flat-footed against me, since he wasn't expecting it...

Yeah. A better example would have been 4e Positioning Strike versus 3e Bull Rush.

The bottom line for me in this debate is this- I want to be able to do cool things to my opponents. The idea of a fighter "marking" an enemy sounds cool to me. I can think of a lot of cool ways to do it, and a lot of cool effects that could go along with it. Cool, cool, cool. I'm allowed to say that.

I can also imagine that the more "utility" things I can do to an opponent, the more likely I am to encounter a situation where that utility effect might be helpful on an ally. For example, if I can strike an opponent and knock him a few spaces away from me, I can use that to accelerate an ally's movement. There's bound to be a few situations where the disadvantage of damaging my ally is less bad than the advantage of moving my ally is good.

But overall, I'd rather deal with that through DM discretion, player maturity, and if I have to flat out handwaving, than go back to pre Book of Nine Swords melee combat for fighters, where the most traditional fighter types could 1) charge, 2) power attack, and 3) hope the rogue gave them a small flanking bonus. Other options existed, but were generally poor choices- you could bull rush, for example, but it was rare that bull rushing was better than charging and power attacking. That combat was dry and unappealing in comparison to later developments.

If my alternatives are A) interesting combat with a diversity of techniques and tactical options, and B) dry damage trading, I'll take (A) in an instant, even if it comes attached to numerous downsides. I could be talked out of taking (A), but... those downsides would have to be awfully significant.

Its not about whether downsides exist. I'll happily grant that a rules system with the need for DM discretion in adjudicating a rule is less well written than a rules system in which the rule is clear and doesn't have exploits, IF AND ONLY IF both rules systems can accomplish the same things.

If you want to tell me that a power like Positioning Strike is bad, you've got to come up with a way for me to accomplish the same things in the ruleset without having to use DM judgment to accommodate the possibility for exploits. If you can't do that, you're wasting your breath.

 

[AZRogue]

To those who are questioning the ability of Marks to overwrite each other, this is how I'm going to handle it: The Marked creature can only focus his worry on one guy at a time. As his Mark is overwritten, he's just perceiving other players as more dangerous and then reassessing the situation.

As to whether the Mark is in the creatures head or an action of the Defender, I say a bit of both. The Defender Marks a creature either by threatening it (my players that love Cavaliers are going to like this) or through divine declaration. The Marked creature has to keep an eye on the Defender that Marked him so as to not leave him any openings. This translates into a penalty for attacking other party members. It's actually all quite neat and tidy, once you get used to it. It's something very interesting that a Defender can do and really makes me want to play one more now. Damn it!

Oh, and an allied Defender isn't going to Mark you to remove an enemy's Mark because: 1. It removes the enemy's Mark and imposed penalties but then imposes the allied Defender's penalties instead--you're still going to be penalized regardless. 2. The Defender had to waste an action to, basically, just change your penalties (if a creature Marks you, attack that creature; when your fighter buddy does it, you're penalized unless you attack your fighter buddy).

I can see people making House rules to either not allow allied Marking, since the threat isn't real, or multiple Marking with no overwriting. It will just depend on the flavor you want. The explanations, as given, though, are enough for me. I'll run this as is and expect it to work fine.

 

[Hussar]

Something that twigged in my head, but I forgot with all the back and forth on marking:

I really love using cards in my D&D games. Cards are portable and flexible information devices. They fit easily in the hand, and you can put a bunch of information on them. Right now, I am fitting entire 4th Edition D&D stat blocks on my 3x5 initiative cards with relative ease -- including my current monstrous bad guy, an adult red dragon named Nemisalat (and she's a solo creature to boot!). But I've lauded the virtues of initiative cards in this column before -- no need stomping old ground to death. For my 4th Edition games I've also been using condition, power, and magic item cards.

An ENTIRE stat block for a dragon on a 3x5 index card? Wahoo! That's friggin' awesome. One thing I remember people complaining about frequently was how much room stat blocks took up in Dungeon magazine and modules.

If this is true, we'll see some serious slimming down on stat blocks.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Its not about whether downsides exist. I'll happily grant that a rules system with the need for DM discretion in adjudicating a rule is less well written than a rules system in which the rule is clear and doesn't have exploits, IF AND ONLY IF both rules systems can accomplish the same things.

If you want to tell me that a power like Positioning Strike is bad, you've got to come up with a way for me to accomplish the same things in the ruleset without having to use DM judgment to accommodate the possibility for exploits. If you can't do that, you're wasting your breath.

Well said.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

You see, this is the kind of assumption that gets game designers into trouble. What if a paladin does get a striker's mobility (maybe he multiclassed or has striker training or figured a way to use some power from the third splatbook published to give himself lots of mobility)? What if other party members get means to reduce the targets' mobility? (Which seems to be almost a certainty given the immobilized condition, etc).

"Wraithstrike is OK because wizards don't get into melee anyway." (And apparently the designers still thought that despite all evidence to the contrary when Spell Compendium came out because it's was unchanged from its complete Arcane incarnation which is on the short list of "most broken spells in the game"). If you're going to engage in that kind of game design, you'd better be darn sure you're right. We'll see if WotC is any better at it now than they were when they insisted throughout every new rules supplement that druids were underpowered.

Oh really? How, pray tell? Paladins aren't going to have striker mobility, and the suggested marks we have heard about do not reduce the target's mobility. This means that the mark *needs* to be able to work at range, and *needs* to not need a frequent melee refresh.

 

[glass]

If I end up in a situation where I and an 'enemy' are flanking a PC, and I decide I want to play 'find Fred's spleen' (mebbe he cheated at cards), I would expect to get the +2 flank bonus on him. Hell, Fred should be flat-footed against me, since he wasn't expecting it...

What about the other way around. Does the 'enemy' get the bonus against Fred because you are there?

If the answer is (genuinely, in actual play) 'no'*, then QED.


glass.

* If it is 'yes' then you have bigger problems than any edition can solve!

 

[Kraydak]

What about the other way around. Does the 'enemy' get the bonus against Fred because you are there?

If the answer is (genuinely, in actual play) 'no'*, then QED.


glass.

* If it is 'yes' then you have bigger problems than any edition can solve!

If you want the "enemy" to get the bonus against Fred, the enemy gets the bonus. *Unlike* marking, flanking your friends almost invariably* gives no benefit at all.

*unusual Karmic Strike style builds sometimes excepted