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

[Brown Jenkin]

I am still trying to figure out how fighter marks work at range and if not how is a mark any better than a AoO. Sure the Palidan's is a divine attack/link but the fighter has to be next to the opponent as far as I can tell.

Turn 1: Fighter marks flying monster which has a ranged attack to protect the wizard.
Turn 2: Flying monster takes to air and zaps the wizard. Fighter gets an extra attack on flying monster (same for both 3.x and 4E)
Turn 3: Flying monster zaps wizard again but now suffers some sort of penalty (or even worse an AoO) despite the fact that the fighter can no longer legitimately threaten the flying monster with any non-magical physical harm.

Same could be said if Monster A is attacking Wizard. Fighter comes up and marks Monster A to draw him off Wizard. Monster B then attacks Fighter pushing him 2 squares away. Monster A then attacks Wizard again. I am still failing to grasp how the Fighter can legitimately inflict a penalty on Monster A or get an AoO in.

The AoO seems right out. As for penalties for being distracted because the Fighter is telling Yo Mamma jokes about the Monster's Mother I can see that as an explanation only if the Monster is given some sort of Will save.

As the designers have said, some monsters will have this ability too then it becomes almost mandatory to have a Will save.

GM: Player 1, Monster A marked you last turn. Sure you moved 6 squares away from him but you still have a -1 penalty if you want to attack Monster B who is standing right next to you.

Player 1: But Monster A is no longer threatening me, why do I still have a penalty.

GM: Because Monster a said something disgusting about your sister and you are distracted and really want to go back and attack Monster A for what he said.

Player 1: But I really don't like my sister either and I probably agree with what the monster said. Can I have a Will save at least to ignore the monsters taunts.

GM: Sorry, no.

Player 1: But why not, that doesn't make any sense.

Player 2: Wait a second, didn't we try to negotiate with that monster before the fight started but we ended up in this fight because he only spoke infernal and none of us knows that language. How can he be insulting Player 1's sister in any way that Player 1 can understand.

Player 1: Yea, I forgot about that.

GM: Look guys thats the rule. I didn't write it, I was just trying to come up with something. I have no idea why it works either but thats how it is written. So take your -1 and lets get on with this.

 

[Lizard]

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!

In most cases, no, because I'm not actively trying to attack Fred. If I am, the enemy does get the flank, because I'm forcing Fred to defend himself on two fronts.

Not seeing what's hard here, sorry.

 

[Belphanior]

I am still trying to figure out how fighter marks work at range and if not how is a mark any better than a AoO. Sure the Palidan's is a divine attack/link but the fighter has to be next to the opponent as far as I can tell.

I suspect you've already given your own answer here: marks might only work on opponents who actually can attack the Defender. A paladin who challenges an ogre and then quickly becomes ethereal (somehow) isn't going to kill or inconvenience the ogre in the least.

The advantage marks have over AoO's are numerous:
* Some creatures can ignore taking a melee attack from a paladin. It doesn't compare with havin -2 to attack anybody other than the paladin and taking 5 radiant damage to boot.
* AoO's may be avoided with shifting, tumbling, and god knows what else.
* Paladins and fighters have powers that work only/better against those they've marked. So marking the ogre will let your Furious Focus deal +1d6 damage. Or something. And maybe - just speculating mind - paladin smites can only be used against those who are Divine Challenged already.

 

[Cobblestone]

Question: marks?

I'm more than willing to withhold judgement on marks until I've played the game and have had a chance to see how the system works as a whole. I am wondering, however, what problem (if any) they were meant to address. I have seen several posts that say, in effect, that marking enables a defender to actually defend. Was this a problem?

My characters have always been able to postion themselves in front of another person, ready to slash (or otherwise attack) any foe who tried to pass. And yes, it was always harder to do so when the baddies were fast, or many, or able to attack at range. But I never saw this as a problem with the game.

And as for calling out an opponent, do we need a rule for something that can be accomplished (or at least attempted) via role-playing?

As an aside, how does a character "mark" an opponent anyway? Is marking part of an attack (i.e. "I've cut you, and if you take one more step towards yon fair maid, I'll cut you again.)? Is it an action that threatens an attack like readying an action (i.e. "If you take one more step I'll fill you so full of arrows...")? Is it a Tai Chi exercise like casting a spell(i.e. "I have waved my hands in the air, and now you must come at me or your skin will erupt in holy boils")? Is it a taunt like a bluff check ("Nah nyah pbbbbb")?

Or are all of those different actions that might result in a "marked" condition depending on the special ability used?

Thanks,

C-stone

 

[Campbell]

Or are all of those different actions that might result in a "marked" condition depending on the special ability used?

Yes.

 

[glass]

In most cases, no, because I'm not actively trying to attack Fred. If I am, the enemy does get the flank, because I'm forcing Fred to defend himself on two fronts.

Not seeing what's hard here, sorry.

Well, what is hard for me is understanding how distinguishing between allies an enemies in 4e is such a problem, when distinguishing between allies and enemies in 3.x isn't (flanking is just one example, various spells are another).


glass.

 

[glass]

If you want the "enemy" to get the bonus against Fred, the enemy gets the bonus.

No, the rules don't say you can choose. The rules specify who gets what bonus based on who is an ally and who is an enemy. So you have to adjudicate who is which, just like you will in 4e.


glass.

 

[glass]

As an aside, how does a character "mark" an opponent anyway? Is marking part of an attack (i.e. "I've cut you, and if you take one more step towards yon fair maid, I'll cut you again.)? Is it an action that threatens an attack like readying an action (i.e. "If you take one more step I'll fill you so full of arrows...")? Is it a Tai Chi exercise like casting a spell(i.e. "I have waved my hands in the air, and now you must come at me or your skin will erupt in holy boils")? Is it a taunt like a bluff check ("Nah nyah pbbbbb")?

Or are all of those different actions that might result in a "marked" condition depending on the special ability used?

Definitely yes to the first one, from what we have been shown. Quite possibly yes to the others too.


glass.

 

[AZRogue]

Maybe the Mark will require an attack against a target's Will, but I don't think it's really necessary. The Mark isn't forcing the target to take any sort of action, it's merely a way to express that the Marked creature is aware that it's vulnerable to the threatening Defender in some way. It takes a penalty because it's keeping an eye out for that Defender. No attack vs. Will (there are no Will saves, remember?) isn't really needed, just as there's no attack vs. Reflex to initiate a Flank.

That said, we might very well see higher level Marking abilities that require an attack vs. Will.

What's most exciting are the abilities that a Defender will be able to use against a Marked opponent. There's some real potential there.

This is an abstract system, to be sure, but it's actually very nifty. It doesn't result in the horrible "Taunt" mechanic that would force a target to concentrate on the Defender, but it does give the Defender something in his arsenal that will make him a force on the battlefield. I think that it will result in some very exciting and tactical combat.

Oh, and I want to see what happens if a Mark is placed outside of combat. "The shopkeeper's bodyguard hears you arguing with his employer and steps around the counter, fingering the blade at his belt and staring at you with both eagerness and hostility in his eyes. You get the impression that he's just waiting for you to turn your back on him."

The poor shopkeepers need protection from some of the players at my table, let me tell you.

 

[eleran]

There should be a name for this fallacy, in which one reasons that the more combat options a game has the less roleplaying options it must have as a result. Its similar to the "D&D Fallacy," (which I just named) where people apply D&D character balance rules to real world people: "He's strong, so he must not be agile." "She's attractive, so she's not smart." Just as not all real life people are created from a limited point buy that forces them to skimp on statistics in one category to excel in another, real life gaming systems do not have a finite amount of positive traits which must trade off against one another.

Once this fallacy is given a name, we can then vastly overuse the name, working ourselves to the point where both the name, and the argument it represents, are greeted with groans of annoyance. I will consider that a victory.

I think its the same zero sum fallacy we see in a lot fo other walks of life.