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


First Post
Doug McCrae said:
How come my 10th level fighter can survive falling 100ft but my 1st level fighter dies? Am I expected to believe his body is somehow tougher?

This game is stoopid.

The in-game reason for that has been explained at length. I call shenanigans!

log in or register to remove this ad


First Post
Dr. Awkward said:
Based on the comments regarding the fighter's Thicket of Blades ability, I'm going to guess that you can only mark a character if you attack it first.
So if you want to get rid of a mark on an ally, you have to attack him. Same as the Rogue's movement power. Sounds fine to me. Trading an attack and possible damage for a mark removal seems OK.

How is this different from using Bull Rush in 3.x?

Barbarian Bull Rushes the Wizard to get him out of harms way.

Rogue tricks ally into moving away to get him out of danger.

Fighter bashes Wizard with his hammer to get the Wizard's attention off of the enemy. Now the Wizard is focused on his "ally" who just smashed him, but at least he's not paying attention to that enemy soldier anymore. I hope it was worth it.

Wizard uses Dominate on Fighter to snap him out of the Mind Flayers control. He used a high level spell, so I hope it was worth it.

Fighter takes down Dominated Wizard Ally to prevent him from Fireballing the party.

This all seem fine to me. The 4e examples don't seem worse than the 3e ones.

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
ainatan said:
This article was like a kick in my groins, not a big one, but it did hurt.

I have the "i'm going to 4E" in my sig but i'm not 100% sure anymore.

There is a limit of gamist silliness I can handle.
Hold on. How many groins do you have?


First Post
Fallen Seraph said:
Ehh, this may be me. But I have always viewed all PnP not just D&D as essentially a collection of rules that you compile together as you wish to best fit the experience you and your players choose to do. If that entitles some DM control over certain powers to run the game you wish, so be it, or cutting out rules, putting some in, etc. so be it.

This is fine. But the rules as written should not require the DM to issue arbitrary decrees from heaven saying a perfectly valid mechanic can't work because "it wouldn't be fair". (Likewise, rules from professional designers with three years of development and playtesting behind them should not have band-aids like "Well, you just can't do that!" to deal with rules exploits so obvious that they were spotted inside of a minute of being posted. This is why I do *not* think there will be a "You just can't attack/mark/etc allies" rule in 4e; I expect much better of the people behind it.)


Relaxed Intensity
Lizard said:
Yeah, I figured most of my creativity would be spent building a world, plotting a story, making interesting NPCs...not justifying the rules.

But, hey, I guess that's why they spent so much time/effort on the "implied world" -- they knew DMs would be too busy house-ruling to do any world building...

Who said anything about house-ruling ? This is about narrating the effects of abstract game rules that serve to give players narrative power over the game world.

Fallen Seraph

First Post
I guess we will just have to wait and see, and heck we are making a lot of assumptions based on a article that wasn't really oriented towards marking and more just about various accessories :p

Now if they did a Sneak Attack style article about this, then yeah definitely we could make a lot more well grounded assumptions.


WotC's bitch
Lizard said:
Yeah, I figured most of my creativity would be spent building a world, plotting a story, making interesting NPCs...not justifying the rules.

And the simple answer to this is known as Hong's 2nd Law.

But, hey, I guess that's why they spent so much time/effort on the "implied world" -- they knew DMs would be too busy house-ruling to do any world building...

Who said anything about house ruling?

Lonely Tylenol

First Post
Lizard said:
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.
Well, except threaten the friend with lethal bodily harm. That might interfere with their friendship, although it would solve the ally/enemy dichotomy.

Given that the fighter's mark seems to amount to "if you do anything other than engage with me in combat, I'll take the opportunity to stab you," I don't suppose that it would work very well on an ally. I figure that if you aren't seriously threatening to remove organs, you can't mark the character. Marking is precisely focusing on an opponent in such a way as to direct their actions toward you by punishing their attempts to disengage. I think that you might be going wrong by taking it to be some abstract metaphysical hocus pocus that the fighter throws around, divorced from its effects.


First Post
Doug McCrae said:
Why can characters make reflex saves when they're asleep?

They can?

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?)

If you tossed a sleeping person off a cliff, I think I'd let them make some sort of check -- wisdom, maybe? -- to wake up and take normal hit point damage. Otherwise, it would be resolved as a coup de grace.

If there's a rule which explicitly states "sleeping characters get reflex saves", it's a stupid rule. How does the presence of stupid rules in 3e (of which there are many) justify even stupider rules in 4e?


First Post
Lizard said:
But WHY not?

Never mind "game balance". What's the in-game-world reason?

Hell, what's the in-game-world reason marks trump each other?

In terms of the paladin, his mark is a supernatural ability. The reason the prior mark vanishes is because Tyr doesn't like to share the limelight with some fighter goon's taunts. It's a supernatural ability, so as far as we know a wizard did it. But suppose it's two fighters trading marks.

Joe Fighter marks the ogre, focusing on him and using a series of feints and challenges to get the brute in a position where any attention to any other PC will open up a big hole in the ogre's defenses.

Ed Fighter then comes up and does the exact same thing- except the sequence of feints and shoves that moves the ogre into position for _him_ puts him out of line for Joe.

Sue the Evil Paladin, working on the ogre side, then wants to use her mark ability on her ally to remove Ed's mark. The DM cuffs her for ignoring the spirit of the rules, and then tells her that Hextor isn't interested in helping a minion avoid a fight.

Willard the Evil Fighter, also working on the ogre side, also fails to get the picture and attempts to use his mark on the ogre to remove Ed's mark. The DM sets Willard's character sheet on fire after explaining that no, it doesn't work that way. In the roil of the _abstract combat round_, the ogre trying to deal with Ed who's really trying to kill him and Willard who is really trying to kill him (but not really trying after this round) and whom he shouldn't bludgeon while simultaneously treating his feints as serious threats yet not ignoring the _real_ threat of Ed... it's just not something somebody can process without results much worse than simply dealing with the first mark. If Willard really is turning coat and stabbing the ogre to death in mid-fight, then fine- it's a real threat that may gain additional oomph from surprise. Willard is no longer an ally trying to rules-lawyer some help for his ogrish friend, he's a brand-new enemy.

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement