|
The newest Save My Game is up:
Marking Marked and Other 4E-isms
Last month I featured good advice sent in by you on table management. I just want to thank everyone who sent me suggestions. Even if I didn't feature your particular nugget of game-table wisdom, I enjoyed reading every single response.
As promised, this month, we'll talk about tracking table conditions and all the little modifiers, conditions, and other bundles of joy that occur in the heat of the battle grid shuffle, but rather than using 3rd Edition Dungeon & Dragons for our examples, we'll explore some upcoming 4E-isms.
Let me start off by saying, like many DMs, I'm a sucker for little DM table tools. Every convention I attend, I scour the dealer's hall looking for interesting little knickknacks that promise to help me run my game faster or help me convey information to my players with ease. Some have fulfilled that promise and have found a place on my game table week after week. Others collect dust in this storage bin or the other, discarded after one session of use.
Yet, there's nothing like a new edition to make me rethink past assumptions and to help me find new uses for old tools. And throughout the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons development and playtest process, I found myself going through those bins and finding ways to use those nifty little tools that have been lying fallow during the last edition's play.
Bloodied
You're in the middle of a tense battle. The wicked mind flayer and its grimlock minions have backed your group into a corner, and it is going to take pure grit and the best tactics to get out alive. It's the rogue's turn. Her player, Lisa, scans the battle grid. She knows that some of the grimlocks have been hit, but she can't remember which have been hit most often. "Which one looks the most hurt," she asks, knowing she should strike there to make an opening in anticipation of taking out their formidable leader.
I absolutely love the bloodied condition. Not only does it give designers an interesting trigger to put on truly debilitating and heroic effects, but it's also a fantastic tool of communicating the general state of the battle quickly. (If you haven't heard about the bloodied condition, check it out in the current D&D Miniatures rules. Because a number of interesting powers on both the PC and monster side rely on their players knowing when a foe is bloodied, when you start playing 4th Edition D&D, get into the early habit of calling out when your character or the monsters you control are bloodied. On the PC side, it lets the DM know that he can unleash some interesting monster powers and it lets your clerics and warlords know that you may want some hit point relief and soon. On the DM side, it lets players know how they are doing in the battle and gives them crucial information that will inform power and action point choice later in the encounter.
Depending on the size of your group, it may be pretty easy to have your players call out when their characters are bloodied. I'm one of those DMs who doesn't mind metagame chatter, so my players are free to talk about the particulars of their hit points and conditions, but I know that many DMs frown on this. Whatever your take on metagaming, have your players call out when they are bloodied when they become so. Bloodied should be no secret. If you are dealing with a particularly large gaming group, or, as DM, you're afraid that you're going to miss out on monster powers that trigger when an enemy is bloodied, give each player a little table-tent with the word "bloodied" on it. With a glance you can see the state of the PCs and progress the action quickly.
As far as letting the PCs know when monsters are bloodied, lately I've become a fan of actually marking the miniatures in some way. I've been taking my D&D Miniatures and sticking a pin in the top. I can then drop beads for different conditions. I have some white skull beads (picked up during a Gen Con So Cal) that I've been using for the bloodied condition.
Marked
Marked is a new condition that defenders and some soldier monsters can apply to their enemies. By itself, it gives a penalty to your target if it attacks anyone but you, which helps defenders and soldiers fulfill their role on the battle grid. Often, though, there are other effects that serve as riders on the marked condition. For instance the paladin's divine challenge -- that class's signature marking ability -- does some amount of radiant damage once a turn when the target of divine challenge attacks someone other than the paladin who marked him. Of course, the fighter (the other Player's Handbook defender) features a different effect, dissuading her mark from taking the battle elsewhere. Oh, and this is really important to remember -- a creature can be marked by only one opponent at a time and new marks supersede old marks.
So like the combat advantage granted by flanking, marked is relational in nature, but unlike flaking, it can't be apprehended purely by looking at the battle grid. In simple battles with one defender or soldier, you won't have any trouble at all -- just have the defender's player keep track of it -- but when you have two defenders in a group (like I do in my Castle Greyhawk paragon-tier game) or a group of mark-using soldiers in the encounter, keeping track of the condition can be a tad tricky, and you'll probably want to use a rigorous method for tracking the condition throughout the rounds.
The method I've been using lately is marking the bases with magnetic, colored counters called Alea Tools. Each character or monster that can mark in an encounter is given his or her own color, and when a target is marked, that color is placed under the base. Alea Tools also offers a tool to create 1-inch magnetized pads that you can put on the bottom of the base to make sure that when you move the mini, the marker comes with it. Last time I was at my local game store, I also noticed that Gale Force 9 offers a magnetized miniature base kit. You could also use beads, like I do for the bloodied condition.
Combat Advantage
While the combat advantage granted by flanking can be apprehended by looking at the field of battle, 4th Edition features many other ways that a creature can grant combat advantage. Various conditions, such as blinded, dazed, and stunned, also grant combat advantage, and since the rogue's sneak attack is contingent on the condition and not just the act of flanking (or catching someone flat-footed), you'll want to find ways in which to communicate this particular combat occurrence to rogues at the very least. Like bloodied, I use those handy skull beads to mark a figure that grants combat advantage to all enemies, and allow the rogue player to keep track of the occasional enemy that grants combat advantage only to her character (using the magnetic markers in complicated battles if she desires).
Cards and More Cards
I really love using cards in my D&D games. Cards are portable and flexible information devices. They fit easily in the hand, and you can put a bunch of information on them. Right now, I am fitting entire 4th Edition D&D stat blocks on my 3x5 initiative cards with relative ease -- including my current monstrous bad guy, an adult red dragon named Nemisalat (and she's a solo creature to boot!). But I've lauded the virtues of initiative cards in this column before -- no need stomping old ground to death. For my 4th Edition games I've also been using condition, power, and magic item cards.
Condition cards are nothing new. There have been a number of publishers who've created condition cards, and many DMs use them. The reason that I think they'll be especially important in your 4th Edition D&D games is because there will be a period of time when everyone in the group is learning the rules, and the more you can avoid page flipping, the faster your first few sessions will run. While developing the new D&D edition, we made sure that the new conditions were simple, talked to one another, and were bullet-pointed so you don't have to wade through paragraphs to find the one clause you seek. This format lends itself to simple cards that convey information quickly. I hand players cards when their characters are afflicted with a condition, and they hand it back when the condition ends.
Power cards aren't entirely new either . . . other classes have had them in the past (mostly spell- or psionic-using classes, but weapon-users got their first taste of their use in Tome of Battle), but they are very helpful especially when you start playing 4th Edition. Like the casters of past editions, everyone in 4E has a healthy dose of interesting options they can employ in combat, and their use and reuse is determined by their rates of usage. While this greatly enhances choice and fun in game play, if you've never used a power-heavy class in past editions of D&D, this can seem a little daunting at first. Even relative veterans of the system (like my home playtest group) can find being thrown into a higher level of play daunting at first without some mnemonic tools. Writing even the most basic description of what a power does and on what page it appears only expedites game play. I know that some of you will scoff at using cards in a roleplaying game, but my sincere advice is to get over your hang-ups. Cards are tools, not the destroyer of roleplaying.
Many times the right card can enhance the roleplaying experience. I've been using the Paizo GameMastery item cards since their release and they're just as useful in 4E. They're relatively inexpensive, and they feature great art and basic descriptions, plus they offer enough room for you or your players to write what the item is or does on the back. They are especially handy to give out when the PCs have found an item, but aren't sure what its purpose (or true purpose) is yet. They are also very handy in that they allow your players to keep track of inventory and have a handy way of trading items . . . just pass the card along. There are, of course, other companies that produce similar products, and using index cards is probably the cheapest way of pulling off this particular time-saving trick.
Finding Your Own Way
Of course my tools are exactly that: my tools. While I hope some of you have found some inspiration and helpful advice (especially those of you who will be running the first public 4th Edition D&D games at Dungeons & Dragons Experience) my tools are based on what I have at hand, my love of experimenting, and the quirks of my own peculiar predilections. There is no doubt that the particulars of my tools will change the more I play 4th Edition, and there is also no doubt that you will find ways that work better for you. The general wisdom that I hope you'll take away from these words of advice is that it is helpful and important to communicate what's going on in the game (and the story) to your players, and the more you can do that with at-a-glance tools, the more time it frees up to use your words, gestures, and general brain power on telling a good story and presenting memorable challenges. After all, if you've done your job right, your players are going to tell the stories of those things for years to come long after the memory of the game mechanics that brought them to life fades into dead neurons.
Delving into the Mailbag
Wow, the proactive part of the column is really long this month, but I hope it helps you when you start running your 4th Edition D&D game. But now it's time to dip into the mail bag and find more specific problems you might be having with your game. And this month they have nothing to do with crunch!
Finding My Voice
I know this sounds a little, well, dumb, but I really want to use a funny voice while playing my D&D character. The problem is, I'm really bad at it. I float from a bad Italian accent to a worse French one and then on to a truly horrid Spanish one in single sentence . . . and not on purpose either. How can I get better at talking funny during my D&D game?
-- Aaron of the Many Bad Accents
Well, Aaron, it sounds like you've nailed talking funny, just not the talking funny you want. I've had characters with outrageous accents. I've played with people who use them. There's a player in my home game (also named Aaron, by the way) who uses accents to help define his characters. Here's the secret behind the funny accent -- they don't need to be good, they just need to be distinctive. Accents are great to get you in the mindset of your character, for others to know when you are talking in character, and to give others the impression that your character is somehow special (or maybe a little touched), but they are also very silly. Sometimes it is just fine to embrace the silly. You're playing in a fantasy world after all, and a mixed-up accent can make your character seem more fantastic. You're not trying to emulate an Italian, French, or Spanish accent . . . it's Sembian!
Rationalization of bad accents aside, if you want to become better at accents, some instruction and practice is your best bet. Professional and amateur actors learn new accents all the time . . . why can't you? There are a surprising number of books with CD and DVD instruction on the subject. You also may want to check out local community theatres or community colleges -- sometimes they offer a variety of workshops for aspiring actors, and I hear (though I can't confirm) that accent training is a rather popular course of study.
Roleplaying N00b
I have been playing since the early 90s and have always been a very hack-'n'-slash-style player and DM. When I moved and started a new gaming group with complete n00bs, this trend continued. But recently I started playing with a new DM who emphasized roleplaying, and I had a blast. I have been trying to add in some roleplaying into my games, and I have been falling flat on my face. I try to get my players to interact and get into the world I have created, but they try for about ten minutes and then revert to talking in third person and out of character. I am not trying to turn a hack-'n'-slash into a nothing but roleplaying but just trying to find a happy medium. Any advice?
-- Flat on My Face Dustin
Well, now that's an entire subject, Dustin. When you first catch the immersive roleplaying bug, it's very easy to take it too far or try to inundate your group with it too quickly. Immersive roleplaying may seem strange to the more gamist groups and can make some players feel self-conscious and silly. The trick is to take things slow and steady. Next month we'll explore four ways in which you can infuse more immersive roleplaying into any group -- even those die hard hack-'n'-slashers -- some of them use very gamist tools!
(Yes, Lazaro linked to it. But this doesn't need DDI privileges.)
Not the best "hate" mechanic I've seen. Not the worst either.
I'm just left wondering why we need a "hate" mechanic. There's nothing iconic or interesting about the WoW jobs of Crowd Control, Support, DPS, and Tank. The entire Defender roll is inane. It has no place in a pen-and-paper role playing game, and its inclusion makes me shake my head.
The Marked Condition is a mediocre implementation of the concept. But the concept is terrible.
-Frank
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Honestly, "Aggro management" is a horrible crutch in any MMO(RP)G i ever played, and makes me shake my head.
Why is it the supposedly-genius world-destroying mage can't see past the fact that e.g. some damage to his (near to non-existing) armor is not as important as to justify hitting the solid steel block with dwarf inside in front of him, rather than eviscerate the squadron of mages and clerics behind that block.
Attacks of opportunity were a mechanic to give the enemy a reason not to run past the front line fighters. The "marked" condition fails to convey that (comparatively logical) concept. It removes a little bit of believability from the system, and the whole suffers for it.
Realism is overrated. Its a game where you can turn people to stone. Believability is precious, however. Mechanisms which remain solidly mechanistic without any apparent justification make it more likely everyone remains solidly fixed at the table, instead of getting a bit more into the game world.
|
Honestly, "Aggro management" is a horrible crutch in any MMO(RP)G i ever played, and makes me shake my head.
The question I have with the new 'conditions' is this: aren't they supposed to be simplifying and streamlining the game? How does adding more conditions for which you have to track the effects support this goal?
I agree, 'aggro management' has always been stupid. Are the monsters going to get a 'marked' effect to encourage the players to beat on the thug in the front line instead of the acid-barfing orc shaman in the back?
|
|
The question I have with the new 'conditions' is this: aren't they supposed to be simplifying and streamlining the game? How does adding more conditions for which you have to track the effects support this goal?
Truth.
I like 3.5, but the 4e promise to streamline and simplify got me interested. I hope it hasn't fallen by the wayside.
|
The question I have with the new 'conditions' is this: aren't they supposed to be simplifying and streamlining the game? How does adding more conditions for which you have to track the effects support this goal?
Disclaimer: No, I don't know the rules and what follows is only speculation based on the known facts.
While 3rd edition ivolved a lot of bookeeping for Buff effects (and stacked buff effects) it seems to me that 4th edition has not so much effects that stack but nonetheless a lot of effects.
It might be easier to keep track of these conditions and the modifiers. Buffs affected the whole statblock (think of dispelled Bulls Strength), these conditions probabaly will not.
But from all that I have seen, Bookeeping will not be less tedious. Especially for the DM.
Think of all the conditions he has to track for the Monsters. And as 4th uses more monsters on average than 3rd it will be a look of work.
Just think of a bunch of Orcs, some bloodied, some marked, some have combat advantage, one is poisoned, one is blinded and one is stunned.
I agree, 'aggro management' has always been stupid. Are the monsters going to get a 'marked' effect to encourage the players to beat on the thug in the front line instead of the acid-barfing orc shaman in the back?
Marked monsters can attack other PCs than the markers, but they get a negative modifier doing so.
I do not know the exact rules, but from what I have seen this mechanics is utter crap! It works for stupid enemies like Goblins or Orcs but I have difficulties comin up with an explanation for the Pit Fiend not to attack the Cleric trying to banish him but hacking at the Defender instead.|
|
The "marked" condition made me laugh. Hard.
A seemingly complex rule to implement at the gametable (the NPC defender has marked you but you marked that one and so on...), and something also difficult to believe from a logic/believable point of view. Whoa.
The article shines though, because it has a link to Paizo Item Cards. 'nuff said.
I think we're missing a key point here, which can be gleaned from the old article on the Paladin's smite ability. It wasn't until epic levels (when we've seen things devolve into silliness anyways) that a monster is forced to attack the paladin. The monsters have a choice prior to this.
Simply put: The Pit Fiend in question might be marked by the Fighter, but will it really care if the fighter uses "Shield Bash to the Face" (for lack of a better clue over the types of moves which will go off of marked) and then gets an AoO if it can fly past him and engage the Wizard in melee? Prolly not. Will a wolf or animal? Yeah, probably.
So far we've seen nothing which means the enemy has to stay in melee with the fighter, it's just that they'll get smacked around a bit if they try to leave. The Paladin gains a smite attack at level 27 (3 levels away from the maximum) where the enemy cannot gain line of sight with anyone but the Paladin until the end of his next turn.
I think the number of conditions is definitely on the rise though, and it will be a pain for DMs to keep track of if they don't include a condition summary on the DM Screen.
Also of note: I saw they were advertising for Paizo's item cards.
|
|
Simply put: The Pit Fiend in question might be marked by the Fighter, but will it really care if the fighter uses "Shield Bash to the Face" (for lack of a better clue over the types of moves which will go off of marked) and then gets an AoO if it can fly past him and engage the Wizard in melee? Prolly not. Will a wolf or animal? Yeah, probably.
Just to re-state what I wrote above: The Pit Fiend can attack the caster but will get a negative modifier.
This is what I got from the article.If the mechanic would be called "taunting" or something like that, my suspension of disbelief would not be stretched like with an ability that all defenders seem to have.
Maybe it is something like "taunting" and the ability is modified by high Cha.? We don't know.
I simply do not like this ability.
Utterly complex. More complex, I believe, than 3rd Edition.
At least 3E was simple numbers, added and subtracted for a net total.
This marked, unmarked, bloodied, blah blah blah is supposed to make 4E faster and easier? Especially with combat being in the dozens of enemies range?
WotC...I applaud your infallible worksmanship with D&D 4E...it simply can't get any worse, can it? (now waiting on a new 4E article to prove me wrong)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Honestly, "Aggro management" is a horrible crutch in any MMO(RP)G i ever played, and makes me shake my head.
Why is it the supposedly-genius world-destroying mage can't see past the fact that e.g. some damage to his (near to non-existing) armor is not as important as to justify hitting the solid steel block with dwarf inside in front of him, rather than eviscerate the squadron of mages and clerics behind that block.
If he's got a fighter next to him, then he's got a problem he probably wants to concentrate on. It does suggest paladins might be able to mark people at range, but not fighters.
The fighter ("Tank" in that parlance) usually does almost no damage - it focuses solely on building "Aggro", while any mentionable damage is done by "toons" not being the focus of its attention.
That concept is just stupid.
Attacks of opportunity aren't exactly believable either. Any rules where people act in turns is going to have trouble simulating a real fight, and I'm certainly not convinced that an AoO is more "realistic" than this mechanic.
Ok, you and i are in a fistfight, and you run right past me, in order to get to someone behind me. Now, i may not be a great fighter, but the moment you turn your BACK ON ME, you are going to be in trouble.
Bloodied. Hmm I can see the benefit of this and may even use a similar idea (with completely different implementation). I like the idea that you can know (with only minor meta gaming how damaged a player and monster is). It helps with the descriptive prompts and helps the DM know when to pull a punch (if he is worried about that kind of thing).
But the implementation? Meh. Depending effects and powers off of it? Blah.
But marked? Blah and clunky.
This means that 4E seems to be heavily reliant on markers and minis. It is starting to look way more integrated in the game then 3E (like had previously been guessed).
Ok, you and i are in a fistfight, and you run right past me, in order to get to someone behind me. Now, i may not be a great fighter, but the moment you turn your BACK ON ME, you are going to be in trouble.
But that makes it sound like anyone should be able to do that not just "defenders".
So, the WoW hunter has an ability called Hunter's Mark that lets you "mark" a target. This, in addition to letting you track the marked target, lets you deal more damage and IIRC hit more often.
*cough*Ripoff*cough*
Bloodied I can deal with but the Marking mechanic? Bleh.
I can tell you though, my half-orc barbarian marked people too, but in a wholly different way.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
In one of these paragraphs you argue that if I ignore you when you're right next to me in a fight I'm going to be in trouble - and you're probably right to say that. In the other you claim that having a "tank" right next to you isn't a problem because they can't do much damage. Which one is it?
A believable solution would be that having anyone right next to you ought to give you pause. No marking involved. No "Defender" role with special abilities to "tank" you. In MMOGs, however, a tank usually unable to do appreciable amounts of damage. You would rather have him hit you for three minutes straight with both your arms tied behind your back, than take 30 seconds of say, a rogues maximum output. That is the fundamental problem with aggro concepts.
Either you take the risk and turn your back on an opponent, or you don't. Something that was captured rather well in the 3.5 AoO mechanics. With marking, however, this moves from a very simple, very easy consideration into the realm of new a new status ("marked"), associated with special rules - and the effect that if your "tank" pulls you through the room to the final tanking position, you actually follow him, instead of turning left into the "rezzers"
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
But that makes it sound like anyone should be able to do that not just "defenders".
Ok, you and i are in a fistfight, and you run right past me, in order to get to someone behind me. Now, i may not be a great fighter, but the moment you turn your BACK ON ME, you are going to be in trouble.
I could not agree more
I'm confused how people came to these conclusions about the marked condition.
Some people have suggested it makes the target attack you no matter what they should do. How did you get that? How did we get from penalties and damage when you ignore me to the Pit Fiend can't attack the Wizard anymore because the Fighter marked him.
I don't remember mechanics like these for MMORPGs because they don't need them. Those monsters have a series of values of who the monster "hates" the it attacks the creature with the most hate. The "tanks" have abilities that let them increase their hate temporarily.
They do not, if I recall correctly, have the abilities that let them get in extra damage if the monster attacks someone else or that the monster otherwise penalized for going somewhere else. That is because they don't need it when the hate mechanic is in there.
So, the WoW hunter has an ability called Hunter's Mark that lets you "mark" a target. This, in addition to letting you track the marked target, lets you deal more damage and IIRC hit more often.
*cough*Ripoff*cough*
Yeah, your right. I mean look at all the simularities between the abilities. Wait, they got nothing in common other than they both use the word "mark". The Hunter's Mark doesn't care if you attack someone else and the 4th edition mark doesn't do anything unless you try to not fight the person who marked you.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
They do not, if I recall correctly, have the abilities that let them get in extra damage if the monster attacks someone else or that the monster otherwise penalized for going somewhere else. That is because they don't need it when the hate mechanic is in there.
Mostly matter of conjecture right now, but what you describe is actually my "worst case" scenario:
A more or less MMOG-like mechanic where deviating from the one who marked you is practically impossible (like making you automatically miss against any but your "tank"). The monster can not do anything but attack the "tank". It is not even an "aggro list" a careless damage dealer can top by accident. Just allowing the players to pick and choose their opponent to the point of making you, the GM, a mere "evaluator of the rules"
Either you take the risk and turn your back on an opponent, or you don't. Something that was captured rather well in the 3.5 AoO mechanics. With marking, however, this moves from a very simple, very easy consideration into the realm of new a new status ("marked"), associated with special rules - and the effect that if your "tank" pulls you through the room to the final tanking position, you actually follow him, instead of turning left into the "rezzers"
Unless the monster decides not to and goes to beat on the healers anyway.
They do not, if I recall correctly, have the abilities that let them get in extra damage if the monster attacks someone else or that the monster otherwise penalized for going somewhere else. That is because they don't need it when the hate mechanic is in there.Mostly matter of conjecture right now, but what you describe is actually my "worst case" scenario:
A more or less MMOG-like mechanic where deviating from the one who marked you is practically impossible (like making you automatically miss against any but your "tank"). The monster can not do anything but attack the "tank". It is not even an "aggro list" a careless damage dealer can top by accident. Just allowing the players to pick and choose their opponent to the point of making you, the GM, a mere "evaluator of the rules"
I really do doubt that it would ever come to that. But if it did I would probably not convert.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Either you take the risk and turn your back on an opponent, or you don't. Something that was captured rather well in the 3.5 AoO mechanics. With marking, however, this moves from a very simple, very easy consideration into the realm of new a new status ("marked"), associated with special rules - and the effect that if your "tank" pulls you through the room to the final tanking position, you actually follow him, instead of turning left into the "rezzers"Unless the monster decides not to and goes to beat on the healers anyway.
If it can - in most games, the ironclad rules of the game forbid it (can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the raiders?). What i am afraid of is that it can't
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Which is more valuable to the defender? Being able to take a swing at someone as they go by, or being able to block or at least hamper someone who tries to? The first, you can probably do at anyone who tries to go past you. The second, you do with one specific person.
The closest analogy I can come up with is from sports, and I suspect the one that might make most sense on this board is to American Football. The job of the offensive line is to stop people getting to the quarterback, and they do that best by closing on someone and engaging them, marking them in this terminology, not by standing in place and try to hit them as they run by. And you do that with one opponent at a time.
Now, is this mechanism more complex than an AoO? I don't know. It...
The question is not so much what the "Defender" would like to have, but what he should be granted by the game environment, in order to make the game believable and challenging.
I am not an expert on american football by any stretch of imagination - but i will try to keep the analogy as well as i can. So there may be a "marking defender", but if i am "marked" by that defender, but am faster and have no other constraints (such as other defenders), i will do my utmost not to engage my "marker", but on the contrary try to evade him as much as possible to get to the juicy targets (in this case, the finish line)
If it can - in most games, the ironclad rules of the game forbid it (can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the raiders?). What i am afraid of is that it can't
I understand the fear, but like Zynete, I think you're seeing things that aren't there friend. Nothing in that post makes me think that striking a target other than your "marker" will be disallowed, just penalized. To assume otherwise is to read words into the article that aren't there.
I agree that it would be a very bad descision, however, and I think I read a post sometime back from a designer saying they had considered it, but realized it sucked. So cheers! :)
Yeah, your right. I mean look at all the simularities between the abilities. Wait, they got nothing in common other than they both use the word "mark". The Hunter's Mark doesn't care if you attack someone else and the 4th edition mark doesn't do anything unless you try to not fight the person who marked you.So, the WoW hunter has an ability called Hunter's Mark that lets you "mark" a target. This, in addition to letting you track the marked target, lets you deal more damage and IIRC hit more often.
*cough*Ripoff*cough*
Maybe "ripoff" was a bit strong a word to use. Sorry, but I see the similarity as Negative for you = Positive for me. They're not exactly the same ability, but IMO they're close enough.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It'd be nice if the miniatures WotC sells came with the ability to track these conditions out of the box if they are going to be integral to the gameplay.
This sounds pretty complicated, particularly when you consider that terrain effects are also supposed to be a part of each encounter and the number of opponents will be much larger.
I wonder how mark will work with the abstract hit points. The way I read this, it seems like we're in that land of hit points = morale again. So, if the cowardly monster refuses to fight my challenging paladin, he takes damage or has some penalty, presumably because he is swallowing his pride/honor to fight someone else. Will marks work on mindless creatures?
Color me meh.
Rules that get used a lot are going to be easier to memorize. I can remember a lot of warblade maneuvers, even though its not my character, simply because they get used a lot. I cant remember the cleric turning mechanic because I personally have never used it, but another player does because all he plays are clerics.
A lot of the powers, especially at low levels appear to be summed up as one line. For example, Piercing Strike can be written as, "Attack opponents Ref Defense." Simple.
As for conditions, Bloodied is easy to remember (half-or-less hit points), and I'm sure that if your group has guys that play a fighter, paladin, or any other class that can "mark" things, that Marked wont be that hard to remember as well.
From what I've heard, everyone still gets opportunity attacks, fighters just get more. This gives the monster an incentive to not try to move away, but they still can. If there is a cleric trying to banish a demon, or whatever, the demon is perfectly free to take a hit if it wants to go after the cleric.
Its not an "aggro" mechanic at all. The monster isnt forced to focus all of his attention on the fighter.
I'm not bothered by the whole minis bit. I've always used them anyway in some incarnation or other, depending on what finances allowed.
Rules that get used a lot are going to be easier to memorize. I can remember a lot of warblade maneuvers, even though its not my character, simply because they get used a lot. I cant remember the cleric turning mechanic because I personally have never used it, but another player does because all he plays are clerics.
Wait... Are you arguing (term used loosely) for the 4th Edition rules because the 3.X ones were hard to remember, or for the 3.X rules because they can be easy to remember?
I lost your point. :-P
|
Mostly, a lot of these rules sound like a new set of Magic: The Gathering. Now you have a new ability, and eventually (see 1 year later) we'll hash out all the problems when mixing it with the other 20 odd abilities.
Example: Bushido + Taunt + Rampage: 2 + Trample on a creature blocked by 3 creatures, each with their own painful abilities, such as they are banded together.
It will probably take some getting used to, but these new rules won't exactly hamper the game in that they are there. Now, if whether or not the rules themselves (and not the quantity) bothers people is another matter.
Side Note: Why is it metagaming to explain that you have low hit points? I mean, yeah, don't just yell "I have 7 HP left" in character (or out of context) but how about explaining (if you are using HP = Physical Damage) "My character is covered in bruises and blood is spurting from my shoulder. I seem to be walking with a limp.".
The flip side would be (if you are using HP = Morale) "I'm sweating profusely, my eyes seem to have fear in them and my swings and blocks aren't connecting as well as they usually do. I'm slightly sluggish."
Bloodied seems to be adding the way of just naming something that was always there (as stated above) and then adding some cool abilities to it. Ho hum, in other words.
As for the Mark, really, nothing new, nothing special. Perhaps it'll stop juggernauts from just running over the fighter and smashing the wizard, perhaps it won't. I'd have to see how bad the penalties were. And really, that's the sad part. If they are too high (as in, you can't attack anyone but the person who marked you) then it gets annoying for the DM. If they are too low (-2 works great at levels 1-7, but who cares after that), then the players won't like.
In my opinion, it seems as though they'll probably scale this, making the mark do different things as it goes up. Whether each of those things are annoying is left to be seen.
Realism is overrated. Its a game where you can turn people to stone. Believability is precious, however. Mechanisms which remain solidly mechanistic without any apparent justification make it more likely everyone remains solidly fixed at the table, instead of getting a bit more into the game world.
I quote the above because it rocks and I agree 100%!!!
I only skimmed the thing, at least they had some nice pics. But adding stuff to minis seems like it will make a round take even longer than in 3.5..ugh! Next time I'm up as GM, I'm definitely going to think about some house rules to 3.5 to keep things flowing faster. This multi-condition thing that 4e has going on doesn't interest me at all.
Rules that get used a lot are going to be easier to memorize. I can remember a lot of warblade maneuvers, even though its not my character, simply because they get used a lot. I cant remember the cleric turning mechanic because I personally have never used it, but another player does because all he plays are clerics.Wait... Are you arguing (term used loosely) for the 4th Edition rules because the 3.X ones were hard to remember, or for the 3.X rules because they can be easy to remember?
I lost your point. :-P
I'm arguing FOR the 4th Edition rules. It seems that the various new conditions will surface enough that it will be easier to remember them, since some people are saying that "all the new conditions" are going to make the game utterly complex, or too hard to play.
When a mechanic is used almost every game, its going to be pretty easy to remember, especially if its effect isnt complicated.The reason why grapple is hard is because it has numerous dice rolls to determine its effects, was very hard to get going, or just was rarely a viable tactic.
Therefore, it gets rarely used, and when it does come up no one remembers exactly how to do it.
The reason why I dont think that 4E will be hard to play is that stuff like Bloodied and Marked will probably pop up almost every game, likely several times.
I've been kind on the fense with the whole 4e thing. This has kinda put me on the not my style of game side.
Now the need for a grid doesn't bother me at all. I have Tac-tiles and a lot of Dwarven Forge so I typically use miniatures. What concerns me is the need to use pins to indicate bloodied and magnets for marked (I know that's the author technique). When a fight breaks out I'm usually firmly behind the screen trying to keep track of the enemies so all the the different conditions of the opponents will probably be a problem. It just seems so complex compared to the streamlined it was suppossed to be.
The idea of marked just sounds too much like a video game. If you want a monster to concentrate on you the do something to get its attention. Even mind control spells won't cause a monster to do something that can harm them until higher levels. The fighter want his attention, then hit him hard, or step in his way or grab his weapon. I don't want a spell-like mechanic (I haven't seen the rules but thats what it feels like). If I want to "tank" I'll play City of Heroes. I can't wait to see if people can mark enough foes to herd. ;)
The bloodied condition is very meh for me. If a player asks whos hurt more then the monster that looks like a pin cushion and is having a hard time swinging its weapon would be their best candidate. It's all in the description and doesn't need a mechanic. I am assuming that its more for how they divide the new hit points in which case I guess the name is fine, it just seems unneccessary.
Much of the things being touted as terrible complexities are indeed not big deals. The Bloodied condition, for example, is just an expansion of Staggered. They decided that they liked people getting Staggered so they made the condition happen at a big swath of hit point totals instead of exclusively at exactly zero. Not a big deal one way or another.
And the new hate mechanics aren't super bad. The fact that there's a separate marked condition for each character and likely more than one slightly different marked condition for each character to throw around is meaninglessly complex. But it's much better than the earlier version of aggro control they were tossing around where you got to move enemy pieces around. I mean, I don't like it. I doubt I'd like any hate mechanic, and I'm not going turn my frown upside down when they tell me that they suggest handing out different colored discs to represent which character a monster will suffer a penalty and an additional variable triggered effect if they attack a character other than. But I've seen worse aggro control mechanics. I've seen worse aggro control mechanics in 4e previews.
The big problem is that they want to have an aggro control mechanic at all.
Getting attacked by monsters is not heroic. It's not iconic. It's not a vital and irreplaceable part of an adventuring party. In Superhero Comics we call the person who constantly gets attacked the "Girlfriend" - they aren't even officially on the team. From the standpoint of actually advancing combat, you can do one of the following things:
- Damage Contribute towards removing enemies from the battle (ex.: Sword Strike; Sleep)
- Buff Grant bonuses to team mates that improve their ability to defeat the monsters faster than team monster defeats them (ex.: Aid Another; Bless)
- Debuff Penalize enemies such that they have a harder time defeating your team before you remove them all from combat (ex.: Disarm; Slow)
- Heal Retroactively undo the effects of the actions taken by your enemies (ex.: Break Enchantment, Heal)
- Control Prevent opponents from taking actions (ex.: Trip; Entangle)
---
Seriously, in an abstract fashion that's what you do. So when they put up bold characters like the Controller (who practices Control naturally, but also gets lots of Damage effects for some reason), the Leader (who has lots of Heal and Buff effects), and the Striker (pretty much just a pure Damage machine as concepted), that's all fine and dandy. But the Defender isn't conceived by what he does, but on where he stands.
The Defender is "in front, getting attacked by monsters." Yeah guys, that's great, but what does he actually do? Does he heap debuffs and curses on his opponents so that the team can slaughter them? Does he just kill things with grim efficiency? Does his mere presence inspire the rest of the team to awe inspiring feats of beat downs on team monster? Who knows?! The Defender concept is an empty one because it doesn't actually include doing anything productive inherently.
And that's why every Defender preview has made us cringe to one degree or another. The devs seem to be thrashing around with what the Defenders are supposed to do, because the Defender isn't a real role in a Role Playing Game.
The MMO Tank is not a requirement of the genre, it's not a requirement of the literature. The MMO Tank is a requirement of the behind the scenes accounting of those games which include the Tank archetype. Nothing more, nothing less. It has no place in D&D. It has no place in any game that doesn't already happen to have math that calls for one to exist.
-Frank
Since D&D emphasizes action, every class has the capacity to deal damage. Thats the important thing to note: EVERY class deals damage. Some do more to one target, while others do less to a broad area.
The Defender role can dish out damage, but they are good at keeping the monster "stuck".
Its not a hate mechanic, as the monster is free to attempt to run away, or go somewhere else.
I still don't see why marked gives penalties to the attacker instead of bonuses to the defender.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I still don't see why marked gives penalties to the attacker instead of bonuses to the defender.
It would be a very different flavor - you're no longer defending, you're attacking. The current mechanic appears to penalize the enemy for attacking anyone other than the defender. The penalty can be avoided by just attacking the defender. Giving the defender a bonus to hit the enemy does something very different and doesn't really defend the rest of the party from the enemy.
I still don't see why marked gives penalties to the attacker instead of bonuses to the defender.It would be a very different flavor - you're no longer defending, you're attacking. The current mechanic appears to penalize the enemy for attacking anyone other than the defender. The penalty can be avoided by just attacking the defender. Giving the defender a bonus to hit the enemy does something very different and doesn't really defend the rest of the party from the enemy.
Guess it just fits my mindset. If I was trying to protect someone and an attacker tried to move past me I would simply kill them to stop them.
Hey gang,
I thought I might re-post something here that I posted over on the ENWorld forums, which may (or may not) address some of your concerns.
To address some concerns in a totally informal way:
Concern 1: Hey, can't the paladin just mark the target and just run away?
Answer 1: Gee, that does seem like the kind of thing the ability should take into consideration. Last I checked...it does. If a paladin calls upon the power of his god to lay his divine vengeance upon any who are to cowardly to face him...he'd better be ready to face them.
Concern 2: Can't you just mark an ally to remove another mark?
Answer 2: Last I checked, you can. I have serious doubts you'll want to. Lets see, I can damage my ally with my attack and impose a penalty on attack rolls...or let the monster impose the exact same penalty on attack rolls. Also, I've wasted a precious action in doing so. Possibly a standard action. Also, I'm no longer actually defending my allies, and the monsters are now in no danger of being targeted by any of my powers that deal with marked foes. Yep. That was a good decision.
Concern 3: What kind of in-world sense does marking make?
Fighter marks someone: The fighter's stance and attacks keep an opponent's attention focused on him; that foe knows that if he wavers his attention for just a second, it might give the fighter the chance to strike, and strike hard. Even when attacking someone other than the fighter, that foe keeps looking out of the corner of its eye at the fighter, wary of another incoming attack.
Paladin: A surge of divine energy flows from the paladin to the enemy, giving the weight of the gods to the words of his challenge. As a sanctified agent of that god, the paladin acts as a representation of that deity's power, and when the paladin has given his word that he will challenge that foe his god makes sure all know that his word is law.
Concern 4: What kind of in-world sense does "no overlapping marks" make?
Answer: Aside from the fact that sometimes a game rule has to happen for balance reasons and rationalization concerns come second, let's look at the two possible explanations:
Paladin overwrites fighter: The enemy has been keeping a wary eye on the fighter, not daring to give him an opening. When touched by a power flowing directly from the gods, that foe has bigger things to worry about; the power of the divine is not to be trifled with.
Fighter overwrites paladin: A divine challenge has been issued, and the gods have backed the paladin's challenge. With the fighter's intervention, the sanctity of the challenge is tainted, and the paladin must once again seek out an enemy to challenge directly without he fighter's intervention.
As an aside, overlapping marks is a tactical choice, and in practice not one made lightly. After all, if the fighter and paladin take turns marking the same target, there are likely other foes out there who *could* be being marked, but aren't, reducing the party's effectiveness as the defenders waste important resources.
Hey gang,
I thought I might re-post something here that I posted over on the ENWorld forums, which may (or may not) address some of your concerns.
To address some concerns in a totally informal way:
Concern 1: Hey, can't the paladin just mark the target and just run away?
Answer 1: Gee, that does seem like the kind of thing the ability should take into consideration. Last I checked...it does. If a paladin calls upon the power of his god to lay his divine vengeance upon any who are to cowardly to face him...he'd better be ready to face them.
Concern 2: Can't you just mark an ally to remove another mark?
Answer 2: Last I checked, you can. I have serious doubts you'll want to. Lets see, I can damage my ally with my attack and impose a penalty on attack rolls...or let the monster impose the exact same penalty on attack rolls. Also, I've wasted a precious action in doing so. Possibly a standard action. Also, I'm no longer actually defending my allies, and the monsters are now in no danger of being targeted by any of my powers that deal with marked foes. Yep. That was a good decision.
Concern 3: What kind of in-world sense does marking make?
Fighter marks someone: The fighter's stance and attacks keep an opponent's attention focused on him; that foe knows that if he wavers his attention for just a second, it might give the fighter the chance to strike, and strike hard. Even when attacking someone other than the fighter, that foe keeps looking out of the corner of its eye at the fighter, wary of another incoming attack.
Paladin: A surge of divine energy flows from the paladin to the enemy, giving the weight of the gods to the words of his challenge. As a sanctified agent of that god, the paladin acts as a representation of that deity's power, and when the paladin has given his word that he will challenge that foe his god makes sure all know that his word is law.
Concern 4: What kind of in-world sense does "no overlapping marks" make?
Answer: Aside from the fact that...
Nope, just made them worse...
Hey gang,
I thought I might re-post something here that I posted over on the ENWorld forums, which may (or may not) address some of your concerns.
Thanks for posting.
Fighter marks someone: The fighter's stance and attacks keep an opponent's attention focused on him; that foe knows that if he wavers his attention for just a second, it might give the fighter the chance to strike, and strike hard. Even when attacking someone other than the fighter, that foe keeps looking out of the corner of its eye at the fighter, wary of another incoming attack.
Then the mark penalties should only apply while the fighter is within striking range of the target. If the target moves far enough from the fighter, there's no reason left to explain the distraction. Similarly, if someone or something blocks the path between the fighter and the target, then the mark would have no effect either.
Then again, I guess that those conditions might be in the full description of the "Mark" power (but somehow doubt it, since it would make for a rather complex rule).
Paladin: A surge of divine energy flows from the paladin to the enemy, giving the weight of the gods to the words of his challenge. As a sanctified agent of that god, the paladin acts as a representation of that deity's power, and when the paladin has given his word that he will challenge that foe his god makes sure all know that his word is law.
If I had to turn this description into game mechanism, I would then apply a penalty to the *paladin* if he attacks someone else than his declared target. "I challenge thee" constrains "me" more than "you".
Besides, the divine/radiant damage caused only if the target does not attack the paladin does not seem to fit very well with the all the other spells we know (mostly from 3.x, I'll admit). I can't think of any spell that work like this: "Target is damaged if it does not do action X", except perhaps some sort of 'geas'. But 'geas' is a really a spell of it own.
All in all, I think that the divine/magical paladin mark might somehow make sense (as a divine version of the famous "You shall not pass!" which means "You'll have to deal with me first!") ... but I have a very hard time seeing the "martial" power (like many other martial powers) work. It smells too much of the "What a cool mechanism, let's try to find some fluff to support it" design (which is my major problem with 4E).
Then again, maybe you end up getting used to all these small "gamist" "holes" (= lack of believability) and you don't mind them anymore because the rules are so fun ... I don't know.
|
|
So, I just thought of something: Let's say you are in a three way fight. An example would be that you and a competing group are both attempting to capture/kill a certain target.
So, you're in this dynamic, interesting fight. Your opponent then marks the target. You mark that target. Based on the idea that the mark is the target being wary of someone, would you get rid of the mark of your opponent? I mean, the guy should be worried about both of you, but marks get rid of marks, so now he keeps going back and forth. And do you give a bonus to your enemy by having that mark, because then the target has to attack your defender and takes a minus to attack their defender... Wait, then it makes the target closer to your side, unless you are using a paladin and he's using a fighter, then marking the target is a downside.
I think I'm lost on this whole mark thing.
So, I just thought of something: Let's say you are in a three way fight. An example would be that you and a competing group are both attempting to capture/kill a certain target.
So, you're in this dynamic, interesting fight. Your opponent then marks the target. You mark that target. Based on the idea that the mark is the target being wary of someone, would you get rid of the mark of your opponent? I mean, the guy should be worried about both of you, but marks get rid of marks, so now he keeps going back and forth. And do you give a bonus to your enemy by having that mark, because then the target has to attack your defender and takes a minus to attack their defender... Wait, then it makes the target closer to your side, unless you are using a paladin and he's using a fighter, then marking the target is a downside.
I think I'm lost on this whole mark thing.
Why would either side want to mark the target? It just gives incentive to attack you rather than the competition.