The "correct" way to deal with marks

[renau1g]

Am I the only one who sees a once per round at-will amount of damage to be no that "cool"? Seriously, everyone sees the mark after effects as being EVERYTHING a defender does, but its REALLY not that much damage..

Or any damage in the case of a shielding swordmage, it's my favourite defender (I like negating 8 damage at 1st level)

 

[Flipguarder]

if defenders are only useful against unintelligent monsters I would never be ad defender in that campaign.

 

[Nytmare]

if defenders are only useful against unintelligent monsters I would never be ad defender in that campaign.

Well it's a good thing defenders are just as useful when the things they have marked decide to do something other than attack the defender!

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

 

[Flipguarder]

Well it's a good thing defenders are just as useful when the things they have marked decide to do something other than attack the defender!

I don't believe they are. A once per round at-will attack vs either negating or receiving damage in place of others.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Right back 'atcha Bricky!

 

[Nytmare]

I don't believe they are. A once per round at-will attack vs either negating or receiving damage in place of others.

But marks are not simply an "at will attack vs negating or receiving damage."

Marked creatures have penalties to hit anyone other than the defender that marked them. Penalties to hit aren't useless.

Marks give extra attacks, on top of all the other stuff the defender did on their turn. Extra damage is not useless.

There are marks that teleport the defender, or teleport the marked creature, marks can grant combat advantage to your party members, they can slide creatures, they can reduce the damage the marked creatures deal. None of these things are useless.

If you are playing and your character gets marked by an enemy do you always ignore the mark? Do you feel like you're cheating when you suck up the associated penalties and attack whoever it is you feel like?

If you're running a game, do you insist that marked players can only attack the enemies that marked them?

Are you saying that you want marks to be "you can only attack the thing that marked you," or that you want the penalties attached to marks to be as strong as encounter powers?

 

[Flipguarder]

Marked creatures have penalties to hit anyone other than the defender that marked them. Penalties to hit aren't useless.

No they are not.

Marks give extra attacks, on top of all the other stuff the defender did on their turn. Extra damage is not useless.

No it is not.

There are marks that teleport the defender, or teleport the marked creature, marks can grant combat advantage to your party members, they can slide creatures, they can reduce the damage the marked creatures deal. None of these things are useless.

No, these things are not useless

If you are playing and your character gets marked by an enemy do you always ignore the mark?

Nope

Do you feel like you're cheating when you suck up the associated penalties and attack whoever it is you feel like?

Nope

If you're running a game, do you insist that marked players can only attack the enemies that marked them?

Nope

Are you saying that you want marks to be "you can only attack the thing that marked you," or that you want the penalties attached to marks to be as strong as encounter powers?

ah finally something I can argue...

As a defender my goal should (as I see it) be to get things to attack me. Whether or not I am still useful when my goal is not being met is not really the point. The point is that I don't feel like I'm meeting my goal when a monster(s) is/are consistently ignoring me.

Every other role has goals that it simply meets with no variance due to DM opinion or whim at the time.

Leaders should try to provide extra beneficial options each turn.
Controllers should try to limit beneficial options for enemies each turn.
Even the Strikers who have to hit a certain defense can make relatively sure that their goal (hitting each round) is being met.
However, defenders try to make things attack them instead of their teammates.

Maybe others see the defender goal differently. But I'm not sure I like the playstyle of the role if my dm can just say "I don't like how effective you are being so I am going to make you less effective with simple strategy (ignoring the guy with a shield)" in the middle of an encounter by simple whim.

So I guess my real question to all your questions is: What do you think a defender's goal should be in every turn?

 

[Skallgrim]

So I guess my real question to all your questions is: What do you think a defender's goal should be in every turn?

I don't think you can really answer that one. Different Classes (and even different builds of the same class) can really work this goal differently.

For instance, while a guardian fighter might have as a goal to "lock down" an enemy elite, preventing him from moving or attacking others (and using his own armor and HP as a buffer), a swordmage with the Aegis of Assault has no real reason to even engage his marked target on his turn. He can increase his effectiveness by avoiding his mark and attacking others (and then getting additional attacks on the marked target, hopefully).

Part of the problem in discussing this is that one of the "main mechanisms" of being a defender (Marking) doesn't work like a lot of other class features, but has two "good options". Some defenders prefer one (attack me and miss due to my awesome AC) and some prefer another (I have the feat that gives you -3 due to my mark, and devoted challenge, so ignore me, miss, and let me hit YOU!).

The many ways you can build a defender make this question like asking "what should a striker be doing each turn to maximize striker damage?". That's going to be very different for a Barbarian, Archery Ranger, Sorceror, or Rogue. Same with defenders, IMO.

 

[Nytmare]

As I see it, a defender whose goal is "get things to attack me" still has to pay attention to whatever the other side of his coin is.

Attack me, because you're not going to be able to hit anyone else.

Attack me, because otherwise I'm going to hit you again on your turn.

Attack me, because if you try to move away, I'm not going to let you.

Attack me, otherwise I'm going to teleport you back over here and you're going to have to walk through the mage's wall of fire again.

If a monster flat out refuses to attack a defender, that defender should be steadily forcing the monster into a situation where the defender can no longer be ignored.

In the end, everyone's fun can get rained out by DM whim. At that point it's not a fault of the game or the mechanics. Archers can spend weeks in tight, twisty hallways where they never get to use their bows effectively. A wizard might pick up fireball, only to discover that he's never going to fight another swarm or minion ever again. There are a million ways that a DM (for good or ill) can counter what they see as an imbalance of power. But, if the DM is trying to keep everyone entertained, you should expect them to not abuse their DMly powers and continuously stick players in situations where they feel unloved.

I don't know if you caught it upstream, but when my group started playing 4th, my defenders ended up bitching because whenever they marked something, all I'd have the marked creatures do was attack the guys who marked them. They felt cheated cause they never got to use the other half of their mark powers, and they were bored by being the only guys who ever took any damage. All or nothing stinks.

 

[DracoSuave]

All or nothing stinks.

Truth. Some inconsistancies in monster behavior and knowledge work well to have different tactics work differently. Players using smart tactics should have them work against dumb enemies most of the time, and against smart enemies have them work less often (tho, of course, not with automatic failure).

 

[CapnZapp]

It's simple.

The mark should apply enough times so that the fighter doesn't tire of not getting to use one of his most visible features, but it shouldn't be applied so many times the other players start planning on rerolling a fighter...

Do note there's nothing in-game about my comment.

The mark can't be explained in-game (like so many other 4E mechanisms); it is simply a game construct to create a better play experience.

It is the DMs job to keep the engine running and provide his players with a fun game session. He does that best by juggling who ignores the mark and who doesn't.

We are fortunate indeed in how the DMG does not have any strict rules for "aggro", instead leaving it up to each DM.

Even if that leads to some gamers not getting an optimal game out of their fighter, because their DM 1) never 2) always 3) predictably choose to ignore the mark, thus allowing (or not) the fighter's main schtick to enter play...