Why remove the Dodge feat, but add "marks"?

[IceFractal]

Marks are fine, I think - significant effects are worth a bit more attention. Like a Wizard hitting someone with Bestow Curse - I don't think anyone forgot who they'd cursed, because it was a significant effect. The large number of "save ends" abilities could get unweildy fast though.

Aura effects could also slow things down. For instance, the Elf "allies within a certain radius get a +1 to Perception" ability is terrible - just like Dodge, it's a minor bonus that will usually be forgotten. And, it requires figuring out your exact marching formation out-of-combat just so you can see who gets a lousy +1 bonus.

 

[helium3]

Aura effects could also slow things down. For instance, the Elf "allies within a certain radius get a +1 to Perception" ability is terrible - just like Dodge, it's a minor bonus that will usually be forgotten. And, it requires figuring out your exact marching formation out-of-combat just so you can see who gets a lousy +1 bonus.

In my homebrew, Haflings grant a +1 luck bonus to attacks, saves, skill checks and ability checks to all allies within a certain range. I vastly simplified "figuring" that needed to be done by simply making the radius so large (120') that pretty much the only way to lose the bonus was to specifically state, "I leave the encounter."

 

[Stalker0]

I will say, after playing a bard for a long period of time that significant effects can still be forgotten.

I could often add +3 to attack and damage to the fighters, yet they would still forget to add in the bonus.

Granted, that's a bonus provided by someone else, and not your class...but still, if players can routinely forget a large bonus that helps them, how often are they going to forget a penalty applied to something else.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I will say, after playing a bard for a long period of time that significant effects can still be forgotten.

I could often add +3 to attack and damage to the fighters, yet they would still forget to add in the bonus.

Granted, that's a bonus provided by someone else, and not your class...but still, if players can routinely forget a large bonus that helps them, how often are they going to forget a penalty applied to something else.

+3 isn't all that large. I know that in our group when the bard adds the plus 3, he's always reminding us to apply it, but that's because the Barbarian in our group is normally the one attacking. It goes something like this:

Barbarian: "I'm raging, I attack with full power attack, I roll a 15 plus 17 for strength, weapon focus, magic weapon, flanking, and heroes feast. I hit AC 32."
DM: "Yeah...that hits, the monster has an AC of 24."
Barbarian: "So I do 2d6+44 damage...it totals 52."
Bard: "Umm, 55, remember?"
Barbarian: "Oh...right. And I guess I hit AC 35 instead of 32."
DM: "Yeah, it didn't matter."

 

[D.Shaffer]

To me, the major difference is this...

Dodging relies almost solely on the DM to actually keep track of which character has applied dodge on what creature. The player hardly comes into it at all besides remembering to say 'I use dodge on X' at the beginning of his round. Marking, on the other hand, has a bit more player interaction. Many of their abilities work on marked creatures, so their's a greater interest on the player's part in keeping track of who marked what.

There's also a bit of a change in how you keep track of the ability. With dodge, it's a creature attack vs a particular characters AC. With marking, it's a creatures attack vs everyone EXCEPT for one character's AC. That's slightly easier to remember.

 

[Rydac]

I agree with the original poster that they should have learned their lesson
with Dodge and not put in minor things to keep track of during combat.

I think Hong is dead on that people will track significant bonuses, so
there won't be problems with players of Rangers and Warlocks tracking
their own marks and the extra damage.

The problem is going to be all the powers that cause the DM and other players
to have to keep track of and adjust numbers. From the D&DXP The Wizard, Paladin,
Warlock, Fighter and Cleric all have powers that cause someone else to do bookkeeping.
In fact all three of the clerics at will powers give some bonus to an ally and one requires
a choice of bonus (Sacred Flame...ally gets choice of 2 Temp hit points or make a saving throw).

Let's be honest. How many times will a version of the following scene be played out
in gaming groups across the globe.
Player: I rolled a 17 do I hit
DM: close, but he just avoids your blow...you miss.
Player: wait a minute didn't Erais give me a plus from his Lance of Faith
Another Player: no that was the round before the bonus is on me this turn.

Or he did have the bonus and hit, but many time wasting variations on re-calculating
due to transient effects looks to be a strong potential problem.

I thought it was a great move to turn the saving throws into static defenses...I think
very good potential to speed things up...we now as RigaMortus" pointed out have a large number of "save ends" which require saving throws at the end of the round. Again I think the mechanic is pretty good for not having to track durations...just roll each round until it is over, but half the first level classes at D&DXP had a "save ends" power...if this ramps up much it becomes pain in the ass bookkeeping.

I'm very much looking forward to 4e and running a campaign, but problems like this make me skeptical that combat will be more cool fun than 3.5

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Let's be honest. How many times will a version of the following scene be played out
in gaming groups across the globe.
Player: I rolled a 17 do I hit
DM: close, but he just avoids your blow...you miss.
Player: wait a minute didn't Erais give me a plus from his Lance of Faith
Another Player: no that was the round before the bonus is on me this turn.

Likely as much as it is now...

Player A: I rolled a 17. Do I hit?
DM: Close, but he just avoids your blow... You miss.
Player B: Did you include the +3 from my Bardic Music?
Player C: Did you include the +1 from the Haste spell I cast on you?
Player D: Did you include the +2 from the flanking you have going?
DM: *Sigh*

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Likely as much as it is now...

Player A: I rolled a 17. Do I hit?
DM: Close, but he just avoids your blow... You miss.
Player B: Did you include the +3 from my Bardic Music?
Player C: Did you include the +1 from the Haste spell I cast on you?
Player D: Did you include the +2 from the flanking you have going?
DM: *Sigh*

Replace Bardic Music with Bless and you have the last session I played in.

 

[Rydac]

Likely as much as it is now...

Player A: I rolled a 17. Do I hit?
DM: Close, but he just avoids your blow... You miss.
Player B: Did you include the +3 from my Bardic Music?
Player C: Did you include the +1 from the Haste spell I cast on you?
Player D: Did you include the +2 from the flanking you have going?
DM: *Sigh*

you're right too...very much like it is now. I'm from the camp that
was hoping we would avoid this stuff with the new edition. Fingers
crossed that it doesn't play like what we're both used to now.

 

[iskurthi]

Deck of many minute bonuses

Likely as much as it is now...

Player A: I rolled a 17. Do I hit?
DM: Close, but he just avoids your blow... You miss.
Player B: Did you include the +3 from my Bardic Music?
Player C: Did you include the +1 from the Haste spell I cast on you?
Player D: Did you include the +2 from the flanking you have going?
DM: *Sigh*

We've taken to using "cards" to list out ongoing effects in 3.5 - most likely 4.0 will require the same kind of tracking, but you have to remember to keep clearing the one-round effect cards off the table all the time, and everyone will have to make cards, not just the players of the cleric and marshall. I expect lots of fiddling through the cards when it looks like a blow is within a couple points of hitting - after all, you only get the one per round.