when the marker is dying

[eamon]

I started a thread at the 4e errata boards advocating rules change on exactly this issue. If you think that RAW should be updated to explicitly state marks should terminate when the marker falls unconscious, you can state so here:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/21853069/Marks_should_ends_when_the_marking_creature_falls_unconscious

 

[Destil]

There's really no need for such a rule, and adding rules to the game only makes things more complex, which isn't good. Likewise the more eratta that gets added the further the game drifts away from the books as printed, which is another bad thing IMHO.

RAW there's no issue with mark durations, since for an unconscious PC who can't retaliate it's just the -2 attack that falls off pretty fast. Paladins still deal damage, but that's actually cool and it's easy enough for a monster to get rid of. Swordmage Agis may be a bit of an issue, but I don't really think it's worth making the change for one corner case.

 

[Elric]

Simple houserule:

If at the start of your turn you are not conscious, enemies are no longer marked by you.

It would be a little more complicated, but this could also trigger on the turn of the marked creature.

"If at the start of your turn you are marked by a creature that is not conscious, that mark ends."

This way if a defender gets dropped by the creature he's marking and then gets healed quickly, his mark doesn't end.

Thoughts?

 

[john112364]

It would be a little more complicated, but this could also trigger on the turn of the marked creature.

"If at the start of your turn you are marked by a creature that is not conscious, that mark ends."

This way if a defender gets dropped by the creature he's marking and then gets healed quickly, his mark doesn't end.

Thoughts?

I like this version. To me marks are all about being threatened by the defender so that you have to divide your attention. The -2 to attacks reflects that you aren't completely focused on your other opponents. You're still keeping a weather-eye out for the defender.

 

[sfedi]

Yes, I like more Elric's version as well.

There's really no need for such a rule, and adding rules to the game only makes things more complex, which isn't good.

And leaving rules as they are, only makes things more silly, which isn't good.

 

[DracoSuave]

I go the opposite route.

Okay, so you -know- that a downed defender is likely to be CdG'd as it stands.

Well... if there's -any- character in your team that -shouldn't- be unconscious'd (barring strange hinky bad luck on his part, or terrible terrible support from the Leader) it's the Defender. I mean, really, that's the one guy you -need- conscious. If having marks persist puts a sense of urgency on that -necessity- and makes the party play a bit more conscious with the healing of the Defender, then that's only encouraging good tactics.

And if it's a situation where things have gone horribly wrong, the defender'd probably suffer a CdG anyways. m

 

[Infiniti2000]

Paladins still deal damage, but that's actually cool and it's easy enough for a monster to get rid of.

Yeah, by killing the paladin. How the heck is that cool?

Forcing monsters to kill downed PC's is against the advice in the DMG. Without this houserule, however, is downright stupid not to do it.

 

[Destil]

Yeah, by killing the paladin. How the heck is that cool?

Forcing monsters to kill downed PC's is against the advice in the DMG. Without this houserule, however, is downright stupid not to do it.

Or, you know, move away from their bleeding body for a round and let it end when they fail to maintain the challenge.

My opinion on this is pretty simple: there's equally stupid arguments for it and against it. Most fighters can't do a thing against an opponent 6 squares away marked with a javelin throw, so them being on their feet or not is clearly irrelevant to the marked condition (and even if one specifically can, not every fighter has options to do so, so it shouldn't be considered to be part of the mark). The mark is because the fighter is just that good at harrying opponents when they attack, preventing them from focusing on anyone else for a set amount of time (until end of the fighter's next turn).

So unconsciousness making a mark fall off is stupid for a fighter. It leaving a mark on is stupid for the swordmage (for some people, I don't have an issue with it, as it's magic). There's no net gain of changing the rule for the 'marked' condition, and no net loss. Therefor I prefer the option that keeps the rules as written unchanged.

If anything just change the swordmage mark to end when unconscious. Which is a change I'd dislike for power reasons, as the swordmage is the best single-target marker post divine power, no need to screw with this niche, but it's still preferable to screwing with the basic rules for no gain.

Edit: If the idea is to mimic the fact that the marker needs to be actively able to 'threaten' the target for the mark to work, then your proposed rule change don't really cover it... it should actually be marked conditions end when the marker is unable to make opportunity attacks, right? That models what you're going for more.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would handle it in the most benefical way for the player...

if the mark would not kill the marker i would let it stay on the monster (at least magical/divine marks...)

Even a fighters mark could stay for a round, because the monster has to refcus after downing the fighter and maybe fight over his instinct to attack the downed fighter to pay him back... but this would be a bad choice for a monster to waste an attack on a PC which is down... when the PC jumps up from unconscious once i and starts hurting the same monster again, it would attack him when he is down whether there is a mark on it or not...

so in the spririt of the game: let the mark stay and ignore it!