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

[Fallen Seraph]

Hmm... Actually, that just gave me a little brain jolt. If marking in-game is how we have viewed it and the character is paying close attention to the person.

I would love to see that be usable out-of-combat as a manner of determining a person's mood, intentions, etc.

So you "mark" a NPC, as they speak because your paying close attention to the actual person not what he is saying, you notice he keeps toying with a scroll in his hand, or he shifts his weight to his left, etc.

*Shrugs shoulders* just a idea.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

wow, so if your a paladin, mark a critter, and step back into a ten foot hall behind two of your companion. Then watch as he kills himself, trying to get through them.

This is so silly, and combat is supposed to be easier now??

I never understand these kind of arguments, do people really play the game following it word by word with no common sense what-so-ever?

People say 4E is dumbing down the game, if someone was to think that was the "proper manner of gameplay" perhaps it isn't the game that is dumb.

 

[Sir Brennen]

wow, so if your a paladin, mark a critter, and step back into a ten foot hall behind two of your companion. Then watch as he kills himself, trying to get through them.

This is so silly, and combat is supposed to be easier now??

Yeah, I'd assume that a paladin would be able to mark an opponent in a cravenly fashion.

Unobstructed line of effect would make the most sense for this ability to work, especially if it has to be renewed each round. Also, unless everybody is playing the same role, does it make sense for the two buddies to defend the defender?

 

[ruemere]

Marking mechanics seem to be of mixed blessing type of development. In miniless (i.e. no accessories), GM will have to limit number of combatants in order to prevent confusion ("Hey, I marked this Ogre!", "NO! I marked this Ogre!") and track additional condition on monster sheet (actually, I have a simple Calc sheet for that).

Also, to speed up things, I have houseruled (in 3.x) mechanic of minion swarm into the game. It's a transparent thingy (players don't get to see it), but it looks like this:
- minion swarm concept: bunch of monsters grouped together and using the same stats,
- minion swarm attacks: 1 attack per each adjacent character (adjust up in case of minion swarms of monsters with multiple attacks), 1 potential opportunity attack per round per minion,
- minion swarm members do not benefit from -10 hitpoints threshold, instead, if you need to find out if any monster survived, assume that 10% are still in Dying condition after the fight.
- minion swarm damage (ordinary melee or ranged attacks): damage tracked for one monster only, damage accumulates until monster dies, tracking damage for the next monster begins (ignore damage in excess of monster's hitpoints),
- minion swarm damage (area effect attacks): calculate number of monsters affected, calculate damage total, reduce number of monsters to match damage allotment with monster hitpoints (basically, kill monsters one by one until damage is assigned to all monsters).

The issue here could be that marking works against singled out individuals. It would be an unfair advantage to mark whole group. I'll have to think about that.

With minis, marked becomes an interesting addition to game tactics.


Regards,
Ruemere

 

[hong]

There will probably be nothing stopping a defender marking someone while standing behind his buddies.

However, it will probably be a bad idea to do so. The defender gets various tricks so he can soak up attacks, while his buddies do their own stuff. If his buddies are out in front, the monster can pound on them with impunity (except for a bit of damage on the side). Allowing it to be tactically advantageous to defend from the second row would make a nonsense of the role.

 

[Shroomy]

Marking mechanics seem to be of mixed blessing type of development. In miniless (i.e. no accessories), GM will have to limit number of combatants in order to prevent confusion ("Hey, I marked this Ogre!", "NO! I marked this Ogre!") and track additional condition on monster sheet (actually, I have a simple Calc sheet for that).

Wouldn't flanking cause a similar issue in a mini-less game?

 

[mxyzplk]

Only one mark can be on a creature at a time.

I'm having a problem figuring out what "real world" condition marking is supposed to represent. If it's "watching someone like a hawk", then why can someone only be marked by one opponent? Two people should logically be able to gang up on someone and both mark them. Why can you do it to multiple opponents, or at range?

 

[olshanski]

It seems like a little extra bookkeeping.

Imagine you've got 12 mooks running around, each with different amounts of damage... you already track that under the old rules, perhaps by putting a die next to each of the wounded ones.
Does the DM say "THey are bloodied at 12 points of damage" or do you place a different chit/token at each one that hits tht point.

Then a boss has a "mass heal" ability that restores 6 HP of damage to all of its allies... now you recalculate damage, an recalculate the bloodied condition, removing the chit from some and not from others.

Its not much extra bookkeeping, but a little.

 

[hong]

I'm having a problem figuring out what "real world" condition marking is supposed to represent. If it's "watching someone like a hawk", then why can someone only be marked by one opponent? Two people should logically be able to gang up on someone and both mark them. Why can you do it to multiple opponents, or at range?

Marking is not "watching someone like a hawk", it's "you notice someone watching you like a hawk". It's a condition applied to the defender, not the attacker.

 

[baradtgnome]

I have this box of cheap plastic poker chips with my gaming stuff that I was not sure how to use. Apparently WoTC solved this for me. Red for bloodied. Seems I'll need more colors if I have more than two defenders (white & blue). Too early to realy understand all the tactical implications of what we just heard. I am fine with the concept, but as always the devil is in the details.