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

[Simonides]

At first, I was a little nervous about marks, curses, and quarries. Colored rubber bands draped over the minis work just fine, though. I will give each player rubber bands of a specific color so that they can drop them on the minis as they use their powers. I will also be using them for 'bloodied' and 'granting combat advantage.'

As far as bonuses and ongoing damage, I will do what I have always done as a DM - have an initiative control sheet on which I can make abbreviated notes. I have developed a very nice shorthand over the years.

At the start of a character's round, I remind the player of the effects currently on that character:

"Chris, it is Therin's turn. He takes 5 damage from being on fire. He also has a +1 to attack because of Aramis' Bless spell."

So, I am not really worried about the bookkeeping. At least now, I won't be ticking off durations. I will simply be noting effects and then erasing them one round later or when a save is made.

 

[davethegame]

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.

Agreed, this was one of the few things I was disappointed with when playing 4e.

The marks in and of themselves are not bad. The problems I ran into were that the marks from different classes operated differently and did different things, so they were hard to track for us and the DM.

If they were a more unified system, and you were only tracking one at a time with a decent benefit, then it would be a lot better. The Paladin one is probably fine because as soon as it attacks someone else the Paladin will say "Hey, 8 damage!" But the Fighter's -2 to hit is more likely to be forgotten. Maybe it's psychological.

 

[VBMEW-01]

At first, I was a little nervous about marks, curses, and quarries. Colored rubber bands draped over the minis work just fine, though. I will give each player rubber bands of a specific color so that they can drop them on the minis as they use their powers. I will also be using them for 'bloodied' and 'granting combat advantage.'

As far as bonuses and ongoing damage, I will do what I have always done as a DM - have an initiative control sheet on which I can make abbreviated notes. I have developed a very nice shorthand over the years.

At the start of a character's round, I remind the player of the effects currently on that character:

"Chris, it is Therin's turn. He takes 5 damage from being on fire. He also has a +1 to attack because of Aramis' Bless spell."

So, I am not really worried about the bookkeeping. At least now, I won't be ticking off durations. I will simply be noting effects and then erasing them one round later or when a save is made.

Rubber bands is a fine, cheap idea, something i am always on the lookout for. And yeah, tracking via initiative sheet has been a staple of mine for some time.

As for Dodge in 3E: we always just called it an all-the time dodge bonus to AC. It is so minor that there's hardly a point in worrying over it. I forgot who it was, but I read an article on DDI that suggested using bases for marks and pins with beads for bloodied etc. All useful stuff.

DMs just love useful.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Agreed, this was one of the few things I was disappointed with when playing 4e.

The marks in and of themselves are not bad. The problems I ran into were that the marks from different classes operated differently and did different things, so they were hard to track for us and the DM.

If they were a more unified system, and you were only tracking one at a time with a decent benefit, then it would be a lot better. The Paladin one is probably fine because as soon as it attacks someone else the Paladin will say "Hey, 8 damage!" But the Fighter's -2 to hit is more likely to be forgotten. Maybe it's psychological.

I though the -2 penalty to hit was the universal effect of being marked? Still doesn't mean it won't be forgotten, but at least this forgetting applies both to Paladin and Fighter

 

[helium3]

I though the -2 penalty to hit was the universal effect of being marked? Still doesn't mean it won't be forgotten, but at least this forgetting applies both to Paladin and Fighter

Oi. It's a matter of semantics. Marking technically is something that only the Fighter and the Paladin using Divine Challenge do. However, the Ranger has his Quarry and the Warlock has her Curse. While these class abilities operate with different mechanics to different ends, there's a large amount of functional similarity between them. Here's an analogy:

In Euclidian geometry, a straight line always has the form Y=M*X+B. Now, you can fiddle with the values of M and B to get any possible line, but functionally they're all the same thing. I see Marks, Quarries and Curses the same way. They differ in the conditions under which they can be placed and what the effect is, but essentially they're all just the character selecting a specific enemy for a specific persisting effect.

I do have to wonder why they didn't just create a unified Marking ability and then find ways to differentiate it based solely on effect. While it's cool and evocative to call it different things for different classes, I do think it's a minor problem that I even have to state the above.

 

[fafhrd]

I do have to wonder why they didn't just create a unified Marking ability and then find ways to differentiate it based solely on effect. While it's cool and evocative to call it different things for different classes, I do think it's a minor problem that I even have to state the above.

They did create a unified marking ability. It provides a -2 to attacks that don't include the creature that did the marking. If you look at some of the monster statblocks, such as the skeleton warrior, you'll see that they can very easily include marking among thier features simply by listing it. Very concise. Watering down the meaning of 'mark' to represent any token mechanic and then loading a bunch of diverse abilities on top of it would seem to be a step backwards in ease of use.

 

[Rydac]

Agreed, this was one of the few things I was disappointed with when playing 4e.

The marks in and of themselves are not bad. The problems I ran into were that the marks from different classes operated differently and did different things, so they were hard to track for us and the DM.

If they were a more unified system, and you were only tracking one at a time with a decent benefit, then it would be a lot better. The Paladin one is probably fine because as soon as it attacks someone else the Paladin will say "Hey, 8 damage!" But the Fighter's -2 to hit is more likely to be forgotten. Maybe it's psychological.

Off topic, but I wanted to thank you for your coverage from the D&D Experience Dave. I really
appreciated your detailed reporting and the interviews. I'll definitely be dropping by your site
regularly.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Actually I think it works out almost exactly the other way round, and I think it will cause problems. It is something I'm a little worried about since it seems that some classes (fighter, paladin) are heavily oriented around it.

Dodge only really mattered to the player. The DM didn't really care whether a player reported his AC with the dodge or not. Nothing for the DM to track on the creatures he is running.

With marks though... This kobold shieldman A has marked fred, fred has marked kobold shieldman B, harry then also marked the kobold shieldman B. Kobold C has marked harry. Which kobolds can attack whom without penalty, which are currently marked, which PCs can attack whom without penalty? Sure you could work it out, but why introduce so much extra gubbins?

The striker bonus damage works nicely because it is completely in the control of the player and it affects what they do.

The mark inflicts a condition/effect on a third party (which could be overridden or changed at any moment) necessitating the third party to remember that it is under the effect. For the DM that could be a lot of marked people.

This is one area where my jury is awaiting adequate presentation of the evidence

Cheers