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

[glass]

1. I'd like clarification on Marking people at range. I hope that you actually have to threaten a target (borrowing the 3e term) in order for the Mark the be effective, excluding some tricks like the Paladin's divine abilities and the Swordmage's arcane marks.

Well, that would be on a power by power basis. I suspect a lot of fighter and paladin powers will be melee-only whether the mark the target or not (since ranged powers are more of a striker/controller thing), but probably a few won't be -whether any of those include marking remains to be seen.


glass.

 

[glass]

One other thought

Do all of those who are complaining about having to distinguish between allies and enemies have trouble with the 3.x flanking rules?


glass.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

D&D has historically been pretty easy on people who are outnumbered. Compare to other games like GURPS or even Exalted, where you can basically only defend from 1 or 2 enemies at a time, and the others get (almost) free hits on you.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is the best example for me. You get one Parry, and if you're lucky, one Dodge roll. Ganging up is deadly.

Shadowrun 3.0 and its combat pool made this pretty similar (except that a "maxed" Street Samurai could blow away your full combat pool in one shot, and use his second action to kill you...)

 

[mxyzplk]

No, it's not. Suspension of disbelief for people _who think too hard about fantasy_ is aided by simulationist rules.

There's a difference between realism and versimilitude. Even with "fantasy" there's supposed to be in-world reasons for things, even if it's as simple as "calling on arcane powers to make a fireball!" So far even the WotC explanation of marking from an in-game perspective is very weak. It leans very very heavily to the gamist side, it has nothing to do with fantasy. Let's say each character got a free "-1 penalty" token they could put on any opponent in a round. It has no in-game-world explanation or effect. That's a board game, that's NOT fantasy.

I may be talking into the wind here, for folks like Hong the Overly Self Important are willing to do whatever's necessary to justify every jot and tittle that Wizards produces on this, but there are many people that consider a tenuous/no link between the rules and the in-game subjective experience to break dispelief and harm their enjoyment of a roleplaying game.

And whether they're expensive or cheap, the immense fiddliness of D&D 4e minis combat is way turning me off. Back "in the day" we did D&D combat without any minis or a tactical map and it was very enjoyable - I find it ironic that anyone who's into all that would lecture anyone on the nature of "fantasy".

 

[hong]

There's a difference between realism and versimilitude. Even with "fantasy" there's supposed to be in-world reasons for things, even if it's as simple as "calling on arcane powers to make a fireball!" So far even the WotC explanation of marking from an in-game perspective is very weak. It leans very very heavily to the gamist side, it has nothing to do with fantasy.

Kinda like hit points, huh?

Let's say each character got a free "-1 penalty" token they could put on any opponent in a round. It has no in-game-world explanation or effect. That's a board game, that's NOT fantasy.

That's also the worst action point mechanic I've ever seen.

I may be talking into the wind here, for folks like Hong the Overly Self Important are willing to do whatever's necessary to justify every jot and tittle that Wizards produces on this, but there are many people that consider a tenuous/no link between the rules and the in-game subjective experience to break dispelief and harm their enjoyment of a roleplaying game.

The difference between us is that in the morning, I will be sober.

HAW HAW!

 

[TwoSix]

But then your defender is not spending his time marking or attacking the Arch Demon. And given that marks just encourage you to attack the person who gave it to you, getting rid of it won't exactly do much.

The other reason people won't do it is that marking is a minor action, and almost assuredly an at-will power. If the defender uses his level 1 mark to remove the level 30 mark from super demon-soldier, all he's done is lower his effectiveness against the monster's he's supposed to be holding off, and the demon will just re-mark his target on his next action anyway. The true balance, as seems to be the paradigm of 4e, is the economy of action.

 

[Hussar]

And whether they're expensive or cheap, the immense fiddliness of D&D 4e minis combat is way turning me off. Back "in the day" we did D&D combat without any minis or a tactical map and it was very enjoyable - I find it ironic that anyone who's into all that would lecture anyone on the nature of "fantasy".

See, "back in the day" lots of us used miniatures too. Weapon space requirements, shield rules, all those assorted goodies were pretty much only possible with minis.

Now, 2e, I'd agree can be done without minis quite easily. But, that's because 2e's combat rules were so abstract that all you did was stand there until someone ran out of hp's.

In 3e, I'm thinking that the number of players who use battlemaps and minis dwarfs the number who don't. So, should WOTC cater to those who are tiny minority of gamers?

 

[hong]

The other reason people won't do it is that marking is a minor action, and almost assuredly an at-will power. If the defender uses his level 1 mark to remove the level 30 mark from super demon-soldier, all he's done is lower his effectiveness against the monster's he's supposed to be holding off, and the demon will just re-mark his target on his next action anyway. The true balance, as seems to be the paradigm of 4e, is the economy of action.

"The economy of action" would be an awesome motto for a katana-wielding swordsaint. Terrible name for a rock band, though.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I may be talking into the wind here, for folks like Hong the Overly Self Important are willing to do whatever's necessary to justify every jot and tittle that Wizards produces on this

I call what Hong and others (myself included) do to "justify" every rule WoTC creates - imagination. We creatively come up with in-game reason for why the power a character has may work. Alot of people here should try it some time.

 

[lutecius]

I was pretty sure the possible abuses, from a purely tactical pov (like marking an ally or the paladin's mark-and-run) would have been taken into account. I believe this is the kind of things 4e will handle very well.

Concern 4: What kind of in-world sense does "no overlapping marks" make?

Answer: Aside from the fact that sometimes a game rule has to happen for balance reasons and rationalization concerns come second, let's look at the two possible explanations:

SEE? gamist!!!

Paladin overwrites fighter: The enemy has been keeping a wary eye on the fighter, not daring to give him an opening. When touched by a power flowing directly from the gods, that foe has bigger things to worry about; the power of the divine is not to be trifled with.

Fighter overwrites paladin: A divine challenge has been issued, and the gods have backed the paladin's challenge. With the fighter's intervention, the sanctity of the challenge is tainted, and the paladin must once again seek out an enemy to challenge directly without he fighter's intervention.

As an aside, overlapping marks is a tactical choice, and in practice not one made lightly. After all, if the fighter and paladin take turns marking the same target, there are likely other foes out there who *could* be being marked, but aren't, reducing the party's effectiveness as the defenders waste important resources.

The fluff probably should involve the fighter backing off from a divinely sanctioned challenge (albeit one that he could disrupt if he chose to do so) since the enemy taking his attention off the fighter just screams "This is when the fighter takes advantage of the enemy's lack of focus" to me.

Fighter overwrites another fighter could be a problem, though.

Concern 4 was the one thing that really bothered me in the preview. And Answer 4 is the one justification I find insufficient from a "simulationist" pov.

Either the effects come from the marker's vigilance, in which case I don't see why they could not stack (after all, divided attention is a disadvantage)

OR it is all in the marked creature's head. In that case, should a focused warrior, an iron-willed outsider or a mindless construct be affected like an easily distracted beast? ie shouldn't there be a Will save against that?

I can see how the divine power of the paladin would work (magic can explain many things)
but I think this is the kind of things that should allow a save too.