You're Marked..how and what'sum'up?

[Hawken]

That would fall under "making monster's immune to class-defining features", which is theoretically something the designers have been actively trying to avoid.

Who said anything about making them immune, and where do you get what designers are trying to do unless you're one of them? So, instead, the designers are throwing in powers that you can't easily justify or explain that cannot miss. Yeah, that's much better!

Just like players get a chance to avoid something (AC or saves), monsters should get a chance to avoid the player's stuff. This is one of the video-gamey things about this edition. Press a button and boom, the enemy is bitch-slapped. Automatic. No chance to escape, evade or resist. Kind of like those button slapping combos on Mortal Kombat and Tekken.

The concept is ok, maybe, but the execution is just wrong.

Paladin at the back marks someone. So, the monster has to run a gauntlet of the paladins enemies to keep from getting a divine boot to the head or he ignores the mark, gets swamped by the paladin's allies and then gets the divine boot to the head.

That just doesn't seem right in any way.

The marked monster has a way to avoid the AoO. He just needs to attack the marker. Getting away from the paladin wouldn't help, because it's a magical effect, and getting away from the fighter provokes an AoO by itself(moving away always provokes one, shifting away provokes 'em from fighters), in which case the penalty is due to being off-balance because of the fighter's swing.

That's just stupid for much the reasons above. Divine Challenge isn't really a challenge because it basically forces compliance (or lays on the pain). Its more accurately Divine Threat to Kick You in Your Jimmy. And the Fighter's mark is also dubious. How is his swing going to throw a Dragon or an ooze off-balance? Fighting some creature that can take the hit and not even blink is going to be hard to justify a -2 penalty because the fighter swings a particular way or kicks a target in the shin or whatever.

The fighters second target from a cleave gets neither save nor defenses. A creature targeted by a wizard's acid arrow takes both initial and ongoing damage without a save(at least once), even if the mage misses.

Yeah, that cleave rule is one of the things that is turning me away from 4E.

Fighter: I aim at the rock on the ground next to the BBEG (with 45 AC).
DM: **Rolls** You hit the rock for 10hp.
Fighter: Great! And my Cleave lets me hit BBEG without rolling!

So, what? Does acid arrow become an area effect now? And I think Evasion would still negate that? Or at least, I'd think it would, otherwise, what's the point of Evasion?

Again, that looks like a way to make an opponent wholly immune to a class(or even a whole power source). Does a PC cleric's Lance of Faith damage the evil wizard or the BBEG cleric?

Again, what's this big deal all of a sudden about someone being immune to a class skill being a bad thing.

Without a magic weapon (or whatever) a golem is immune to a fighter's ability to kick its butt. Plenty of Undead are immune to a Cleric or Paladin's ability to Turn or at least highly resistant. Creatures with spell resistance are immune to a good portion of a wizard's class ability (to cast spells). Someone with magical boots is immune to a Ranger's ability to Track them. Someone with Uncanny Dodge is immune to Sneak Attack. Someone who is deaf is immune to a bard's suggestion. There are plenty of examples.

And maybe the wizard or BBEG doesn't take damage from Lance of Faith if it doesn't hit them or their save is high enough. Something that doesn't come into play with things like Cleave, or marking.

 

[Lurker37]

what's this big deal all of a sudden about someone being immune to a class skill being a bad thing.

You're joking, right?

 

[Hawken]

You're joking, right?

No, I'm not. What is the big deal? Why is it so "oooh, we can't have that!" regarding someone resisting or avoiding a class benefit?

Undead being immune to Turning don't break the game. Spell Resistant creatures that the cleric or sorcerer or wizard can't touch, don't break the game. Hell, Iron Golems are immune to most spells and heavily resistant to damage. Yet they don't break the game.

Now, "Marking" comes out, I suggest that there should be a way to avoid it or get rid of it and "no, we can't do that, that would be making someone immune to a class benefit". So what? Gimme a break, like it hasn't been done before!

And I didn't state that someone would have to be immune to it. I suggested. But I also suggested a way to avoid or remove the Mark.

My beef about this, and a few other things, is that there is no way to avoid or counter it and its a lame enough thing to begin with. It won't break the game to have a mechanic in there where the Mark won't work or where it can be undone.

Fighter (5th level): Aha! I mark you!
Fighter (10th level): I don't think so, kid. **ala MC Hammer** You can't touch this!

Paladin: By the power of my deity, I challenge you to battle. **Divine Challenge**
(Evil) Paladin: By the power of my mojo, kiss my codpiece! **Couldn't give a rat's butt about Divine Challenge**

A more experienced fighter isn't going to get 'marked' by some rookie. He's seen all those tricks before, knows what to watch out for and likely came up with some of the moves the younger fighter is using.

And the "fight me while my friends whale on you or get fried" mark of the paladin just seems rather un-paladin-like to me.

 

[BeauNiddle]

No, I'm not. What is the big deal? Why is it so "oooh, we can't have that!" regarding someone resisting or avoiding a class benefit?

Undead being immune to Turning don't break the game. Spell Resistant creatures that the cleric or sorcerer or wizard can't touch, don't break the game. Hell, Iron Golems are immune to most spells and heavily resistant to damage. Yet they don't break the game.

Now, "Marking" comes out, I suggest that there should be a way to avoid it or get rid of it and "no, we can't do that, that would be making someone immune to a class benefit". So what? Gimme a break, like it hasn't been done before!

And I didn't state that someone would have to be immune to it. I suggested. But I also suggested a way to avoid or remove the Mark.

My beef about this, and a few other things, is that there is no way to avoid or counter it and its a lame enough thing to begin with. It won't break the game to have a mechanic in there where the Mark won't work or where it can be undone.

Fighter (5th level): Aha! I mark you!
Fighter (10th level): I don't think so, kid. **ala MC Hammer** You can't touch this!

Paladin: By the power of my deity, I challenge you to battle. **Divine Challenge**
(Evil) Paladin: By the power of my mojo, kiss my codpiece! **Couldn't give a rat's butt about Divine Challenge**

A more experienced fighter isn't going to get 'marked' by some rookie. He's seen all those tricks before, knows what to watch out for and likely came up with some of the moves the younger fighter is using.

And the "fight me while my friends whale on you or get fried" mark of the paladin just seems rather un-paladin-like to me.

You might want to use the word 'were' when discussing previous examples of immunity

The high level fighter has sufficient attack bonus that he doesn't care about a 'mere' -2 from being marked and so can attack whom ever he likes. The evil paladin has enough hit points that a few radient strikes wont bother him.

Oh and the Paladin has to actively challenge the person he marked (either by moving towards them or attacking them) for his retribution ability to work. Yes a Paladin focussed on archery could have a lot of fun but it's not that impressive.

We haven't seen all the rules so there might be something in there about ignoring marks but the designers specifically mentioned they were trying to avoid such things just because of the arms race it causes (1st level PC has mark, 5th level monster has anti-mark, 11th level PC has uber-mark, 15th level monster has anti-uber-mark, 21st level PC ...)


Oh and about the cleave doing damage without an attack roll - why not use a power that does damage on a miss and leave the poor boulder alone [the BBEG isn't going to care about str damage but probably will care about weapon + weapon effects + power effects + special + str damage of a normal hit.]

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't have that big of a problem with marks; honestly, that's what AoO seemed to be meant for at first, keeping those guys in the back safe. They just didn't work too well at doing so. However, there SHOULD be some way of resisting them. A fighter marking you ala basketball style shouldn't really work too well on a monster much LARGER then he is.

"Ok, I attack and mark the beast! Now I keep his attention on me, harrying him when he tries to focus elsewhere!"
"...Well, alright. It's his turn. Roll real quick?"
"Sure!"
"Yeah, ok. He steps over you."
"He can't do that!"
"...He steps on you?"

Keep in mind, this is a poorly thought out example more meant for a poor example of attempted comedy. What I'm getting at is, I don't know if monsters should be outright IMMUNE to it, but give the players a chance it won't work. Besides, I'm willing to bet most players would throw a fit if THEY got marked with no save.

 

[theNater]

Who said anything about making them immune, and where do you get what designers are trying to do unless you're one of them?

This change reflects one of the important philosophies behind D&D 4E. Some abilities are so key to a character's class that they should rarely, if ever, face a blanket immunity. Monsters that shut down one character are more likely to make the game dull for a few characters, or force the spotlight on to a sole player, rather than create interesting situations for the entire party.

That's where I get what designers are trying to do without being one of them.

So, instead, the designers are throwing in powers that you can't easily justify or explain that cannot miss. Yeah, that's much better!

You may notice that in the post you are quoting I justify marking with a ranged attack as cover fire that has a chance to do damage, as well as provide cover. I found saying that very easy.

Just like players get a chance to avoid something (AC or saves), monsters should get a chance to avoid the player's stuff. This is one of the video-gamey things about this edition. Press a button and boom, the enemy is bitch-slapped. Automatic. No chance to escape, evade or resist. Kind of like those button slapping combos on Mortal Kombat and Tekken.

I'd like to point out that unavoidable effects are not new to this edition. 3rd edition's magic missile, for example, neither requires an attack roll nor provides a saving throw. Do you have the same objection to 3rd edition? Even if you did, note that marked is a minor debuff, where magic missile was moderately impressive damage.

The concept is ok, maybe, but the execution is just wrong.

Paladin at the back marks someone. So, the monster has to run a gauntlet of the paladins enemies to keep from getting a divine boot to the head or he ignores the mark, gets swamped by the paladin's allies and then gets the divine boot to the head.

That just doesn't seem right in any way.

If he's going to get swamped by the paladin's allies in either case, what's the downside to running the guantlet? If he's got a good enough defensive position to not want to abandon it to avoid the damage, isn't it good enough that he can handle a little extra damage?

That's just stupid for much the reasons above. Divine Challenge isn't really a challenge because it basically forces compliance (or lays on the pain). Its more accurately Divine Threat to Kick You in Your Jimmy. And the Fighter's mark is also dubious. How is his swing going to throw a Dragon or an ooze off-balance? Fighting some creature that can take the hit and not even blink is going to be hard to justify a -2 penalty because the fighter swings a particular way or kicks a target in the shin or whatever.

I know that if a guy walked up to me and said "Fight me or get kicked in the jimmy", I'd take it as a challenge. As for the fighter, well, even hits that don't actually damage you can hurt. Most people will not claim a stubbed toe as damage, but will limp for a few seconds. Of course, if the fighter misses, that may mean the monster had to dodge, and so isn't in a very good position to take their shot. With the oozes, I figure a solid hit(or forced dodge) would set up some pretty good wobbling throughout(try poking some free standing Jello sometime, then imagine being that Jello and trying to attack somebody).

Yeah, that cleave rule is one of the things that is turning me away from 4E.

Fighter: I aim at the rock on the ground next to the BBEG (with 45 AC).
DM: **Rolls** You hit the rock for 10hp.
Fighter: Great! And my Cleave lets me hit BBEG without rolling!

BeauNiddle already spoke to this: reaping strike is certainly a better power to use here than cleave. If you manage to roll high enough to hit, you get a good solid shot in; if you don't, at least you don't feel like you totally wasted your turn. (The damage from missing with reaping strike and damage from cleave are pretty small, but at least they're something.)

So, what? Does acid arrow become an area effect now? And I think Evasion would still negate that? Or at least, I'd think it would, otherwise, what's the point of Evasion?

Yeah, acid arrow goes all area effect if it hits its primary target, it's pretty cool. And it does a little damage(to the primary target only) if it misses.

As for Evasion, I'm a little confused by what you mean when you ask if it would *still* negate that. Have we confirmed the presence of Evasion in 4th edition? It felt to me like a "be awkward to the wizard" power, which doesn't strike me as something that would be held onto.

Again, what's this big deal all of a sudden about someone being immune to a class skill being a bad thing.

Same thing it was the first time you asked.

Without a magic weapon (or whatever) a golem is immune to a fighter's ability to kick its butt. Plenty of Undead are immune to a Cleric or Paladin's ability to Turn or at least highly resistant. Creatures with spell resistance are immune to a good portion of a wizard's class ability (to cast spells). Someone with magical boots is immune to a Ranger's ability to Track them. Someone with Uncanny Dodge is immune to Sneak Attack. Someone who is deaf is immune to a bard's suggestion. There are plenty of examples.

These look like 3rd edition examples. This is precisely what the Races and Classes quote suggests the developers are trying to move away from for 4th edition. While these weren't game-breaking(by themselves), I found them annoying. It's not much fun being the wizard when the party runs into a critter with high spell resistance, and it's not much fun being the bard when you run into a bunch of deaf foes, or foes that deafen your allies.

And maybe the wizard or BBEG doesn't take damage from Lance of Faith if it doesn't hit them or their save is high enough. Something that doesn't come into play with things like Cleave, or marking.

With the examples you gave, I'm starting to think you could have the villain here use the following mechanic:

Resist 5 radiant

This takes a lot of the bite out of the paladin's divine challenge without completely removing it(even if the damage is totally negated, the marked condition will still be on the guy), and so his atheism/faith in a stronger diety protects him from those sorts of strikes without entirely preventing the party members who work with a divine power source from participating.