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

[Campbell]

Why do I get the feeling that I'm going to like it?

You're really going to like it.

 

[The Little Raven]

I will be dumbfounded if it does, because it's...uh...dumb.

Well, I find the "I use Divine Challenge/FighterMark to mark Joe, so it will remove that pit fiend's mark" to be dumb, because it seems to be predicated on the player having no common sense whatsoever.

Also, if a DM is dumb enough to allow something so blatantly nonsensical, then Joe's gotta deal with penalties (or damage) from being marked by someone he will never be attacking.

 

[Hussar]

Good guy paladin has the binding smite mark, which prevents an opponent from attacking anyone else. He intends to use his binding smite to prevent the Herzau demon from demolishing the rest of the party that has succombed to paralysis poison.

Herzau demon has a minor toady follower that has the minimal mark that causes 1 point of damage every time you attack someone that is not the markee.

When the Herzau demon is marked by the paladin, the demon delays for his toady to perform the weaker but still over-riding puny mark, which gives the demon free reign to stomp on the vulnerable PCs.

Again, this is the whole "bag of snails" argument we saw in 3e. If this is coming up in your game, you have larger issues than mechanics can help with.

 

[olshanski]

Helpless reduces your dex to 0, so the save is certainly harder. And you can't use evasion any more. But nothing forbids making reflex saves.

off the topic of the OP, but it is really quite funny when you throw a sleeping bugbear into a spiked pit trap (Reflex DC20), and the bugbear makes his save...

 

[Kraydak]

Well, I find the "I use Divine Challenge/FighterMark to mark Joe, so it will remove that pit fiend's mark" to be dumb, because it seems to be predicated on the player having no common sense whatsoever.

Also, if a DM is dumb enough to allow something so blatantly nonsensical, then Joe's gotta deal with penalties (or damage) from being marked by someone he will never be attacking.

Nothing lacking in common sense here, beyond marks not stacking. Of course, I'm also expecting Paladins marking foes and then... running away! Send in the bag of enraged rats. They will, eventually, kill the foes. Either by attacking or by getting killed. Either way, the paladin wins. If the paladin's mark means the target gets hurt significantly if he attacks anyone else, the paladin wants other people to get attacked.

 

[Mad Mac]

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

It leads to splendid inter-party dynamics, I'm sure.

Wizard: "Oh no! The Orc Paladin of Warhuggles has marked me! If I attack anyone else but him I'll take a penalty on my spell attack rolls due to split concentration, and my poor squishy buttoks will be zapped!

Fighter: No worries, chum! I'll just mark you instead, and you need not fear his creepy glowy burnination.

Wizard: Great! So how does that work?

Fighter: Oh, it's easy. First I'll hit you with my greataxe. Try not to flinch too much if you don't want to lose any important fleshy bits.

Wizard: But I like my fleshy bits!

Fighter: Oh quit being such a baby. We can always sow you back together after the fight. Now close your eyes!

Wizard: *eyes closed* I don't know about this...it's just one hit right?

Fighter: Yup.

Wizard: And then no more the with hitting, and burning, and robes becoming soaked through a mysterious process I am completely not responsible for?

Fighter: Yu-wait. Did you just wid--

Wizard: Shut-up!

Fighter: Well here we go...

*Kasplatter!*

Fighter: Uh...you ok?

Wizard:.....

Fighter: Oh come on...just a flesh wound, right?

Wizard: Fighter...

Fighter: Yeah?

Wizard: Did you just...crit me? With your friggen Greataxe of gory critting?

Fighter: Uh...maybe....Hey! who wants Ice Cream?

Wizard:....I hate you.

Fighter: It's not that bad. Look, the glowy mark is gone now!

Wizard: Wheee...so is that it? What happens now?

Fighter: Now it's simple. If you try to attack anyone but me, I'll gut you like a pig. Problem solved.

Wizard: So basically...we just kill each other now?

Fighter: *Chuckle* Don't be silly.

Wizard: Well that's a relief...

Fighter: I'll kill you way before you take me down

Wizard: *facepalm*

 

[Hussar]

I think, "significantly" will be the operative word there.

And, I imagine that it will be a LOT like the Knight's challenge mechanics from PHB2. If the enemy chooses not to attack at all, he suffers no penalty. So, marking someone then turning invisible and hiding won't actually do anything.

 

[Zoatebix]

For those of you who simply must know about Hong's laws: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=112664

 

[The Little Raven]

Nothing lacking in common sense here, beyond marks not stacking. Of course, I'm also expecting Paladins marking foes and then... running away! Send in the bag of enraged rats. They will, eventually, kill the foes. Either by attacking or by getting killed. Either way, the paladin wins. If the paladin's mark means the target gets hurt significantly if he attacks anyone else, the paladin wants other people to get attacked.

Except that someone with common sense would take into account the fact that intention of the power is to be used on enemies (not friends that you're temporarily calling a foe, in order to game the system), and it's intended to keep you doing your job (fighting foes so your allies aren't getting lumped on by those same foes).

What you're saying is that the paladin is not going to do his job, since he's not not going to be engaging his foes and preventing his allies from being attacked by them (which is what a defender is supposed to do).

So yeah, I'd say this concept lacks in common sense.

 

[The Little Raven]

It leads to splendid inter-party dynamics, I'm sure.

One thing missing is that the wizard would be suffering from the negative effects of the fighter's mark, and therefore would still have a penalty on his spell attack rolls.