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

[Fallen Seraph]

I imagine the first part may be for balance reasons, but would hardly be the hardest thing to houserule.

As for multiple-opponents I am pretty sure it stated you could only mark one opponent at a time (shall re-read).

As for at range, well magic spell or arrow. Probably some marks are only close-range or become close-range if you have no means of ranged use.

 

[hossrex]

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.

We're talking about crunch here. If someone wants to do something within the realm of what the crunch allows, it is allowed.

Unless you're defending this 4ed rule, because you're saying "players will be nice enough not to do what will easily break this rule".

Why have rules at that point? All the characters could just get together and have a tea-party.

This is tactical combat. You're suggesting that a DM punish a player for inventing a creative use of his class' crunch, simply because the rule is so malformed, that it doesn't support creative thinking.

That would be what everyone else in the world calls "bad" DMing.

 

[olshanski]

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?

I think it is like "issuing a challenge" where the opponent then has a stronger incentive to attack one person instead of another. An opponent who is "marked" is not necessarily watched by the person who marked him, rather he has been issued a challenge by the person who marked him and now he has a strong mechanical incentive to attack only the person who marked him, instead of one of the weaker and easier to kill allies of the person who marked him.

This appears sometimes in movies.... when armies clash, the two opposing generals find each other in the crowd and go head to head.

It also happens when the protagonist issues some sort of challenge that forces the bad guy to forget what he is doing and attack the protagonist (or sometimes vice versa). You could see this in just about every action movie made in the 80s... especially if it was a cop that was supposed to arrest the bad guy... the bad guy would provoke a fight an the cop would have to kill the bad guy instead of arrest him.

This also happens a lot in video games, where the opponents have some dumb AI that forces opponents to attack the closest enemy... so you send your tank 1 square ahead to get the focus of all of the enemies, then your low-AC/High-damage people move in and clean up.

This is clearly NOT AT ALL what you'd find in real life, and it is not meant to simulate real life.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Perhaps it has no 'real world condition'. We have many things in D&D that aren't even overtly magical that have nonetheless been done for the sake of mechanical 'elegance' (for lack of a better term). Marking allows a Defender to do his job. I do hope that the rules cover situations where the Marked creature is unable to attack the Marking character. It would be silly.

 

[Sir Brennen]

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?

Not sure of the "fluff" explanation, but I'm pretty sure this is one of the things that was mentioned in a playtest report that it was way too good to allow to stack (particularly for the paladin.) So it's for game balance reasons you can't. Have to wait for the fluff to see if it can be justified in game well enough.

 

[FireLance]

Yeah, my h4t of 43 know no limit...

Still think it's more complex? Well, now you have something to disprove the nay-sayers who claim 4E's been dumbed down

Yes, it is more complex and dumbed down at the same time! It is also way too linear and you just get better in every way! Even if you are a desert nomad who has never seen more than a waterskin full of water at a time! You have hit points and levels! It fails in just about every aspect of a game, and it is more of a combat minis game than role playing game! You cannot suck in combat! You cannot sneak attack with a greatsword! You can heal your friends by hitting your enemies! You can heal your friends by hitting your friends! It is too many rules and not enough rules at the same time! Hong is not made up!

 

[FadedC]

Regarding only being marked by 1 target at a time, there was a blog that discusses why this rule probably came into being. It talked about I believe a fighter and a paladin standing side by side, making sure that which target the enemy attacked it got severely penalized for not attacking the other. This was found to be more then a little too strong, so now it seems only 1 defender can mark an enemy.

Regarrding keeping track of bloodied and combat advantage....well you've always needed to keep track of a monsters hit points and negative statuses. This is just an optional way to remind people that monster A is stunned and monster B is below half hit points. Doesn't really require any more book keeping then before.

 

[mxyzplk]

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.

And it hurts you? And makes you attack them? Weak.

 

[hong]

And it hurts you? And makes you attack them? Weak.

It does not "make you attack them". It means that your attention is focused on someone, so that if you do try to attack other people, your distraction hampers you.

It does not "hurt you" either, unless you mean the paladin's ability which is explicitly magic.

 

[The Little Raven]

And it hurts you?

If it's the paladin version, which is him calling upon his deity to mark you for his divine justice. A supernatural effect that acts like a supernatural effect. Where's the problem?

And makes you attack them?

No. Try reading more carefully, since nothing in the article (nor even the Binding Smite paladin power) forces anyone to attack anyone. Nothing makes a marked target attack anyone in particular. It just makes other targets less appealing, for different reasons based on class (paladins deal damage to you, fighters might get opportunity attacks and such).