you're going to hate a god personally wielding a weapon to do it.If it was a god weilding the weapon, it would do a hell of a lot more damage.
Really, Spiritual Weapon is not the god acting for you.
It is the power of the god wielding the weapon though. Isn't that where divine magic comes from? The power of a Paladin's god burns an enemy that doesn't meet his challenge when focused with a Paladin's mark and it whacks him in the head with a spiritual mace (or whatever) when it is focused with a Cleric's spiritual weapon. Seems sensible (as sensible as a god's power being focused to do anything) to me.
Cheers! :)
Edit: Hey hey! New page! Whohoo!
The real breaker for me seems to be the paladins "divine challenge". Damage every round? I can get behind that.
Righteous speech backed by sword and faith in the gods? Cool.
God being a referee that punishes the monster for not fighting with the paladin? ...Huh?Attention: If you are going to come up with an argument against a 4e design element, please do not choose an argument that applies equally to a 3.5 design element. The rules are full of divine magical effects which deal damage over time to enemies. Spiritual Weapon, anyone?
(And yes, I understand Spiritual Weapon doesn't decide if the target's attacking the paladin. But it's also attacking every round on its own initiative, so if you hate a god deciding whether to attack, you're going to hate a god personally wielding a weapon to do it.)
If that was the case, I would hate the mechanic and get rid of the spell. But the priest who casts it designates the target not the god. Also the weapon attacks on the priest's initiative not it's own. It has no thought process of it's own.
Spiritual Weapon
Evocation [Force]
Level: Clr 2, War 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Magic weapon of force
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.
Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action.
A spiritual weapon cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual weapon’s AC against touch attacks is 12 (10 + size bonus for Tiny object).
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
Above is the spell from SRD and below is the changes I have implemented in my game. I have bolded the differences in mine.
Spiritual Weapon
Evocation [Force]
Level: Clr 2, War 2
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Magic weapon of force
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favoured by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing with one attack each round thereafter on your turn. It uses your base attack bonus (Though it is limited to only one attack per round no matter the base attack bonus used) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus.
It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.
Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action.
A spiritual weapon cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual weapon’s AC against touch attacks is 12 (10 + size bonus for Tiny object).
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
It is the power of the god wielding the weapon though.
I never took it as such.
I always took it as the god grants you a generic pool of power. Not unlike the ring Green Lantern uses. What you did with it was your own choice. And like the ring, the god could take it away from you if s/he felt you weren't using it right.
There is also the only one mark thing. Why would someone elses mark be negated by yours (or Vice Versa)? Wouldn't (by the explaination provided) it in fact make your marking effect even more effective? Three guys glaring is way more intimidating then one. Three gods burning your ass effects you more the one. Etc.
I think I might have the answer for this one - when the system was originally designed the designers hadn't accounted for more than one Defender in a party. Subsequently in a group with all Defenders, the monster could effectively be destroyed by everyone rushing up and using the Paladin Challenge and then going into a total defense action. Lame? Yes. Effective? Also yes.
A simple idea I've had for this problem: Monsters and characters may only be marked by one mark from any given power source (Martial, Divine, Arcane, Necrotic, Psionic, Etc.) at a given time. If an additional mark is placed, the old mark is superseded (two paladins cannot place both their God's divine wraths upon the same target, since Gods are the jealous types/Two fighters cannot both be giving the stink-eye to the same monster at the same time/etc.)
Just an idea, but it could help to balance things out. As for using marks on fearless creatures, I dunno. Some seem like they should work (The Ranger's Hunter's Quarry, the Paladin's Challenge) but others (The Fighter's Steely Eyed Glare) feel a little out of place.
By the way, why are marks immune to the ongoing effect saves? The fighter's ones you can kind of excuse as "you don't get a save because it's not magical (but also doesn't require any kind of check like a normal non-magical intimidation) but the paladin's mark sure is a magical ongoing effect.
|
"Aggro" is shorthand MMORPG gamer speak for "Aggression" or "Aggressive". Urban Dictionary has some other definitions HERE
As to only one mark at a time:
Firstly, we do not know the "final" version, only the beta version that has been verified to be "changed" for print.
I would think that if it bothers you that a fighter can arbitrarily remove a paladins mark or visa versa, I can already see a house rule along the lines of:
If there is an existing mark already on an opponent, you can only place your mark on that opponent by making a "to hit" roll vs the original markers will defense (or charisma, or whatever fits based on power)
In this way, i think its feasible that the paladin could try to supercede the fighters mark, if he is stronger in his faith than the fighter is intimidating (? - i forget the damn fighter challenge fluff)
It is the power of the god wielding the weapon though.I never took it as such.
I always took it as the god grants you a generic pool of power. Not unlike the ring Green Lantern uses. What you did with it was your own choice. And like the ring, the god could take it away from you if s/he felt you weren't using it right.
I guess you could look at it that way, but I'm not sure how it differs from my original post. So you're using the generic pool of power granted by your god to whack your enemy in the face with a mace (hmm, strange rhyming thing going on here ...)
Or you're using the generic pool of power granted to you by your god to burn your enemy for not answering to your challenge. See, still equivalent.
In either case (yours or mine) giving your god the finger will leave you powerless (heh, remember that time you blasphemed? I think YOU'LL be getting the mace-whackin today son!)
Cheers! :)
ArchLich, did I miss a difference? All I see is restricting a Spiritual Weapon from getting multiple attacks?
By the way, why are marks immune to the ongoing effect saves? The fighters ones you can kind of excuse as "you don't get a save because it's not magical (but also doesn't require any kind of check like a normal non-magical intimidation) but the paladin's mark sure is a magical ongoing effect.
I guess the true answer here is "game balance". I know that doesn't sit well with some folks, but it doesn't really bother me.
Some spells/effects offer saves in 3.5. Some don't. Some have to get through SR, some don't. This is just more of the same. IMO, at least.
Cheers! :)
ArchLich, did I miss a difference? All I see is restricting a Spiritual Weapon from getting multiple attacks?
No, that is all. I just thought the spell was to powerful for a 2nd level spell. I was just putting it up to point that out while it was kinda on topic :) [/threadjack]
See, still equivalent.
The important distinction is that I wasn't trying to suggest they weren't.
CNB has gotten a "bee in his bonnet," so to speak, and is spoiling for a "fight" so bad that s/he is making stuff up to combat the comments the s/he feels others are making up.
All I was doing was correcting the perception that CNB was trying to get across.
It wasn't meant as a commentary on the actual point behind the comments.
ArchLich, did I miss a difference? All I see is restricting a Spiritual Weapon from getting multiple attacks?No, that is all. I just thought the spell was to powerful for a 2nd level spell. I was just putting it up to point that out while it was kinda on topic :)
Lol. Fair enough. I'm not sure if I've ever seen it cast in 3E, so I dunno how it really stacks up. Thanks for clearing it up! :)
See, still equivalent.The important distinction is that I wasn't trying to suggest they weren't.
CNB has gotten a "bee in his bonnet," so to speak, and is spoiling for a "fight" so bad that s/he is making stuff up to combat the comments the s/he feels others are making up.
All I was doing was correcting the perception that CNB was trying to get across.
It wasn't meant as a commentary on the actual point behind the comments.
Oh ok! :)
I thought you were disagreeing with me there. Peace has been declared! (Let's break out the cheese and crackers!)
By the way, why are marks immune to the ongoing effect saves? The fighters ones you can kind of excuse as "you don't get a save because it's not magical (but also doesn't require any kind of check like a normal non-magical intimidation) but the paladin's mark sure is a magical ongoing effect.
Good post. I think they didn't allow a Save for balance reasons, so the Paladin could be more effective in a Defender role. If the Paladin's Mark could be Saved against but the Fighter's couldn't, that would make him (the paladin) weaker in that role.
Personally, I think they could have added the Save and it still would be alright. The Paladin's Mark actually does damage, so your point is a very good one. I can only assume they did it for balance purposes, but I'm not sure it was necessary.
I think I might have the answer for this one - when the system was originally designed the designers hadn't accounted for more than one Defender in a party. Subsequently in a group with all Defenders, the monster could effectively be destroyed by everyone rushing up and using the Paladin Challenge and then going into a total defense action. Lame? Yes. Effective? Also yes.A simple idea I've had for this problem: Monsters and characters may only be marked by one mark from any given power source (Martial, Divine, Arcane, Necrotic, Psionic, Etc.) at a given time. If an additional mark is placed, the old mark is superseded (two paladins cannot place both their God's divine wraths upon the same target, since Gods are the jealous types/Two fighters cannot both be giving the stink-eye to the same monster at the same time/etc.)
I could easily see them slipping that in as either a last minute change or a first wave errata.
Just an idea, but it could help to balance things out. As for using marks on fearless creatures, I dunno. Some seem like they should work (The Ranger's Hunter's Quarry, the Paladin's Challenge) but others (The Fighter's Steely Eyed Glare) feel a little out of place.
And that is what I'm trying to get across. The internal consistency and logic doesn't feel right and it would mess up some people's games in terms of immersion. (I never suggested that it was imbalanced math wise.)
All I was doing was correcting the perception that CNB was trying to get across.
Archlich had a problem with the Paladin's mark causing damage, because it meant your god was punishing an enemy for not accepting your challenge. I pointed out that there are examples in 3.5 where divine magic damages people over time. These would seem to make as much sense as each other.
Do you disagree with the first sentence, the second sentence, or the third sentence? What have I misrepresented here?
Aggro is a type of farm equipment? Pray tell, what does it do? (Serious here, I've probably never been closer to a farm than when I see them on tv, so it's kinda a mystery what goes on over there ...)Ummm, whatza "aggro" mechanic?!?!?!
(Where I grew up, it would probably refer to someone that fixes farm equipment...)
Greg
(Disclaimer, I was not raised on farm, but I lived in a city of 200,000 people smack-dab in the middle of the Canadian prairies.)
At university, the studets in the "Agriculture" college were called "Agros". Hence the pun. (Or at least the attempt at one... :-)
In MMORPGs, there is no DM to decide a monster's actions, so each monster keeps an "aggro list", basicly a list of player's who have pissed it off. Generally doing damage to the monster is the main way to get on the list, but healing/buffing people doing damage, debuffing the monster, or "taunting" it are also effective. The monster generally attacks the person at the top of the list, with some special monsters breaking that rule to make them more challenging.
Hope that helps! Cheers! :)
Yep, it does! Thanks.
Greg
Huh. Would ya look at that. I'd always thought the abbreviation (is that one 'b' or two?) was Agri. As in Agri-bussiness, or the Agri-subsidy. Although I guess I have heard some people say it like 'aggro' now that you mention it!
Thanks! :)
Technically, you're right, actually. I was making a pseudo-pun... :-)
|
Other classes get this, and I think the MMO term for it is "dotting".Actually, a "dot" stands for "damage over time". It has nothing to do with aggro management (except that it often generates less aggro than a direct damage spell).
It really doesn't matter if it is found in MMO's or not. Ridiculous, gamist mechanics like this should be kept far away from an RPG.I assume you've banned Evasion and spiked chain tripmonkeys from your games as well? And druids, for that matter, since after level 5 they basically become one rules loophole after another?
I've thought about it. I've strongly considering at least making evasion cause the PC to make an immediate move action out of the area of effect. That would make it a lot more palatable.
So is "marking" a mind-effect?
The reason I ask is I'm looking at it from being on the receiving end. Here is hopefully a good example of what I'm thinking. Say I'm playing Joe Fighter the overly brave none too smart sword wielder and I'm in a fight with two monsters. Keep in mind since I do not know the actual rules for marking the numbers are made up.
Me: "I attack monster A"
DM: "Ok but your at a -2 because you are marked by Monster B"
Me: "Why should I be at a minus I'm not afraid of him, I'm Joe I'm not afraid of anything."
DM: "Well monster B is heavily armored and staring you down, so you have to watch out for him."
Me: "So what monster A already attack me and bloodied me while monster B may look mean hasn't done a thing. I could care less about monster B."
DM: "Your still at a -2 because your marked"
I really hope this is not how the mechanic works. If it was a mind-effect then it would fall under something like suggestion where it actually changes my thinking so that monster B does seem like an actual threat. I guess if the effect of being marked meant my AC for monster B to attack me was less because I ignored him it would make some sense, but it still feels kinda weird.
So is "marking" a mind-effect?
The reason I ask is I'm looking at it from being on the receiving end. Here is hopefully a good example of what I'm thinking. Say I'm playing Joe Fighter the overly brave none too smart sword wielder and I'm in a fight with two monsters. Keep in mind since I do not know the actual rules for marking the numbers are made up.
Me: "I attack monster A"
DM: "Ok but your at a -2 because you are marked by Monster B"
Me: "Why should I be at a minus I'm not afraid of him, I'm Joe I'm not afraid of anything."
DM: "Well monster B is heavily armored and staring you down, so you have to watch out for him."
Me: "So what monster A already attack me and bloodied me while monster B may look mean hasn't done a thing. I could care less about monster B."
DM: "Your still at a -2 because your marked"I really hope this is not how the mechanic works. If it was a mind-effect then it would fall under something like suggestion where it actually changes my thinking so that monster B does seem like an actual threat. I guess if the effect of being marked meant my AC for monster B to attack me was less because I ignored him it would make some sense, but it still feels kinda weird.
Its not a fear or mind-affecting mechanic; at least not as presented. For paladins, the mark (divine challenge) is driven by their divine power source; for fighters, the mark is driven by their fighting skills. A fighter can only mark an opponent when he attacks.
Okay guys, here is a much much better description of the Fighter's Marking ability.
The Fighter Marks a target only when they attack. After that initial attack, the fighter continues to harrasses the target. People receive a attack penatly because the fighter is knocking thier blows aside and defending anyone else from the monster, trying to force the guy to focus on the fighter instead.
The fighter is not just standing across the room doing nothing and squinting at people. The penalty has got nothing to do with being afraid of the fighter. The fighter is activly interfering with your attempts to attack other people.
If the fighter IS across the room form the monster, then he would have had to use a ranged attack to Mark his target. That means he's got a bow, and arrows, and is firing distracting shots at the monster.
All of this cinematic, without rolls, and frankly it sounds very cool. The fighter no longer just stands there doing nothing while all the monsters run behind him and eat the soft, squishy mage.
Me: "I attack monster A"
DM: "Ok but your at a -2 because you are marked by Monster B"
Me: "Why should I be at a minus I'm not afraid of him, I'm Joe I'm not afraid of anything."
DM: "Well monster B is heavily armored and staring you down, so you have to watch out for him."
Me: "So what monster A already attack me and bloodied me while monster B may look mean hasn't done a thing. I could care less about monster B."
DM: "Your still at a -2 because your marked"
If a player was so bull headed that they cannot play by the rules of the game, and would argue this way with the DM, then that DM needs to drop the hammer on this player HARD, because they are not playing by the rules and are disrupting the game. It doesn't matter if your character is scared of the monster. My characters aren't scared of magic missle either, but they still hurt.
|
|
The fighter is not just standing across the room doing nothing and squinting at people. The penalty has got nothing to do with being afraid of the fighter. The fighter is activly interfering with your attempts to attack other people.
Teiran, I get what you're saying and like it, but the only problem is that unless it IS some kind of "intimidation" effect, it breaks down with multiple marks.
If the minus comes from the fighter actually physically interfering with a monster's attacks, why does it suddenly go away when the ranger or paladin Mark the monster as well?If the fighter IS across the room form the monster, then he would have had to use a ranged attack to Mark his target. That means he's got a bow, and arrows, and is firing distracting shots at the monster.
I'm not sure if I buy this description either. I can only imagine the S-storm my players would raise if I declared his fighter/archer was suddenly out of arrows because he'd been Marking a target for the last X number of rounds.
"Well it's just assumed he stops and picks up the arrows."This doesn't work either because what if it's a "running gun battle" through the woods or the party is doing a high speed "SWAT-teaming" a dungeon?
I think the marking system is an interesting mechanic, but I also think it's got some issues.
-J
The fighter is not just standing across the room doing nothing and squinting at people. The penalty has got nothing to do with being afraid of the fighter. The fighter is activly interfering with your attempts to attack other people.Teiran, I get what you're saying and like it, but the only problem is that unless it IS some kind of "intimidation" effect, it breaks down with multiple marks.
If the minus comes from the fighter actually physically interfering with a monster's attacks, why does it suddenly go away when the ranger or paladin Mark the monster as well?
ALL of the mark's break down when you consider multiple marks. The 'no multiple marks' rule is a mechnical rule designed to prevent the game from becoming broken when five or seven players multiclass into paladain so that everybody can challenge the same monster, and the damage over time stacks up so high no monster could stand it for long. The rule is there to prevent game balance from breaking down. But you know what? That's just fine.
We've been hand waving stuff like this away since the very begining of gaming. Every edition of D&D has had stuff like this. In 3rd edition, the biggest new one was Flanking. To get the bonus, two people had to be on exact oposite sides of a monster to get the bonus, and if a third guy came along to help and stood off to one side, he didn't get it.
The mechanic was designed to show how it is more difficult to defend yourself against two people on either side of you. It didn't let you ignore one person and concentrat on the other, denying one person the bonus. It didn't let a third person help out, even though defnding against three people is much harder then two.
We don't pay attention to the obvious flaws in Flanking because those are the rules, and Marking should be given the same treatment.
If the fighter IS across the room form the monster, then he would have had to use a ranged attack to Mark his target. That means he's got a bow, and arrows, and is firing distracting shots at the monster.I'm not sure if I buy this description either. I can only imagine the S-storm my players would raise if I declared his fighter/archer was suddenly out of arrows because he'd been Marking a target for the last X number of rounds.
"Well it's just assumed he stops and picks up the arrows."
This doesn't work either because what if it's a "running gun battle" through the woods or the party is doing a high speed "SWAT-teaming" a dungeon?
I think the marking system is an interesting mechanic, but I also think it's got some issues.
-J
See, that kind of answer is exactly what drives people like me, who just want to play a fun game and ejoy their fantasy combat, absolutly nuts.
I say, "We're saying i keep attacking him to distract him, and we just ignore those extra shots and not treating them as actual extra attacks, because this is just the fluff of how the power works."
Your responce is to count the arrows I'm shooting?
I've asked for a little willing suspension of disbelif so that everybody can have a good time playing, and the counter is "No, we must have arrow count accuracy in our fictional game."
Why exactly would you do that? How does that improve the game?
If you are playing 3rd edition D&D, you've already accepted that every type of weapon hits every type of armor the same way, regardless of how they work in the real world, because this is a game. There are a dozen other examples out there.
The minor inconsitancies in how the Marking mechanic works is not that big a deal. Why are people complaining that Marking is not completely, real world logical?
Keep that "aggro" crap out of my RPG. If you want to dictate how the monster behaves, cast dominate monster and hope he fails his save.Once again, putting constraints on how a monster acts is bad if it's a new mechanic added in 4e, but perfectly fine if it was added earlier!
Seriously, the fighter's mark at level 1 is almost the same, with virtually the exact same consequences, as being flanked in 3.5. Do you have a problem because flanking "forces the target to move"?
The problem I have with it is that flanking (and aiding another) sounds plausible, while the other stuff doesn't.
With flanking, I can see it: you got the enemy in a bad position, so it only follows that he is at a disadvantage and you have an easier time hitting home.
Aiding another is similar: You actually help out. You actively distract him. It's spelled out.
But marked reads just like a "cool game rule". I don't see much of a correlation.
Sure, a fighter could hack at people madly, "marking" everybody around him, so they get a disadvantage if they attack someone else. Beats me how he can keep that up for several people and still concentrate enough on his own target, but I'll let that slide for a while.
But then comes the paladin divine stuff. He's so radient that it will damage enemies - but only if they fight somebody else? What the hell? So he can't let that radience work all the time, only when the other guy's turning his back. Besides seeming quite illogical and smacking of being made-up, not to simulate credible combat but to add "cool powers" just to appeal to people, it smacks of being cowardly. So the paladin can now sneak attack people - but since it's god the word divine in its name, it's okay, it's not underhanded at all.
And then there's the part where you can be marked only by one. That, more than anything else, makes the whole marked mechanic scream out "BOGUS!" to me. Nothing more than a game rule. Doesn't have a base in "realistic"/credible combat simulation than the fact that you get to roll again on a 6 in ludo.
We've been hand waving stuff like this away since the very beginning of gaming. Every edition of D&D has had stuff like this. In 3rd edition, the biggest new one was Flanking. To get the bonus, two people had to be on exact opposite sides of a monster to get the bonus, and if a third guy came along to help and stood off to one side, he didn't get it.
<snip>
We don't pay attention to the obvious flaws in Flanking because those are the rules, and Marking should be given the same treatment.
That third guy sure would get flanking bonuses in my game. As long as at least two people were on opposite sides splitting the opponent's attention (and of course assuming that he could be flanked) anyone that was in melee would get it. But I don't play with miniatures and a battle mat.
-------------------------------------------
I say, "We're saying I keep attacking him to distract him, and we just ignore those extra shots and not treating them as actual extra attacks, because this is just the fluff of how the power works."
Your response is to count the arrows I'm shooting?
I've asked for a little willing suspension of disbelief so that everybody can have a good time playing, and the counter is "No, we must have arrow count accuracy in our fictional game."
Why exactly would you do that? How does that improve the game?
Internal logic and consistency always improve the game. If it happens for X reason it should happen for X reason.
If you don't normally count arrows fired then don't count them for continual harassment.
But what happens when the person doesn't have a ranged weapon or even a melee weapon? What happens if the paladin doesn't engage? All this questions aren't "You guys sure are picky". What I am trying to do is understand. These rules make sense from a balance perspective. Their in game explanations do not. After all if it is just harassment or intimidation or divine power why can't a class with a non-defender roll but the same power source do the same thing? Why are creatures forced to be intimidated or harassed or whatever no matter the actual fear level, fighting skill of the opponent or whatever.
The answers we have seen presented as definitive answers are:
1) Descriptive fluff that sounds good except when compared to each other.
2) Because. Not "Because you see ... (explanation)." But just because.
3) Game balance.
Those don't mean fun to me. If a role-playing game is super balanced but makes no sense then it might work well but I don't want to play it (because it is mentally frustrating to wrap your head around and not fun to me). As a board game it would be awesome, card game it would be great, a war game also good. As an RPG it would be so-so.
-------------------------------------------
If you are playing 3rd edition D&D, you've already accepted that every type of weapon hits every type of armour the same way, regardless of how they work in the real world, because this is a game. There are a dozen other examples out there.
That is because there is over complication and then there is logical sense. If a hammer made out of marshmallows were to do as much damage as a steel war hammer then I would be discussing that too. Everyone knows that different armour is weak to different types of attacks (kevlar anyone?) in real life but then again it is a game not a simulation.
Realism is not necessary for internal consistency and logic.
-------------------------------------------
The minor inconsistencies in how the Marking mechanic works is not that big a deal. Why are people complaining that Marking is not completely, real world logical?
I'm not saying "Marking is not completely, real world logical" I am saying that it is not logical period; either by the games explanation or its own rules. (Marking seems to be an automatically effective magical effect that does not require target save DC attacks, duration saves etc.)
(This is of course as far as I know based off of what has been released, the full game haven't yet been released and all).
It sounds like a lot of you play with house ruled version of 3E. If you had to house rule 3E to fit exactly what you want, I'm not really suprised you have similar problems in 4E.
If I'm flanked by two piddly kobolds, why can't I just ignore one and deny the one I focus on a flanking bonus? The answer comes down to game balance. If you can accept that, I'm not sure why a similar idea can't be extended to marking. If you can't accept that, then I agree, marking will likely be equally problematic for you (but not having a problem with it myself, I'm not sure how to suggest you change it so it works for you, sorry!)
Cheers! :)
It sounds like a lot of you play with house ruled version of 3E. If you had to house rule 3E to fit exactly what you want, I'm not really suprised you have similar problems in 4E.
If I'm flanked by two piddly kobolds, why can't I just ignore one and deny the one I focus on a flanking bonus? The answer comes down to game balance. If you can accept that, I'm not sure why a similar idea can't be extended to marking. If you can't accept that, then I agree, marking will likely be equally problematic for you (but not having a problem with it myself, I'm not sure how to suggest you change it so it works for you, sorry!)
Cheers! :)
If it works for you then I am pleased that your are pleased.
:)
|
Just an idea, but it could help to balance things out. As for using marks on fearless creatures, I dunno. Some seem like they should work (The Ranger's Hunter's Quarry, the Paladin's Challenge) but others (The Fighter's Steely Eyed Glare) feel a little out of place.
The ranger's hunters quarry ability and the warlock's curse do not "mark" the target (as mark is a very specific condition that means that the target takes a -2 penalty to attack anyone other than the creature that granted the mark). AFAIK, only fighters and paladins have abilities that "mark" the target.
It sounds like a lot of you play with house ruled version of 3E. If you had to house rule 3E to fit exactly what you want, I'm not really suprised you have similar problems in 4E.
If I'm flanked by two piddly kobolds, why can't I just ignore one and deny the one I focus on a flanking bonus? The answer comes down to game balance. If you can accept that, I'm not sure why a similar idea can't be extended to marking. If you can't accept that, then I agree, marking will likely be equally problematic for you (but not having a problem with it myself, I'm not sure how to suggest you change it so it works for you, sorry!)
Cheers! :)
If it works for you then I am pleased that your are pleased.
:)
Then everyone is pleased! (Really, I'd like it if I could pitch marking in a way that you'd dig, but, the way I see it, marking is a continuation of some of the ideas found in 3E's flanking. If you're changing what you found there, I expect you'll have to change what you find in 4E's marking, although no one will know until we have it!)
Cheers! :)
Just an idea, but it could help to balance things out. As for using marks on fearless creatures, I dunno. Some seem like they should work (The Ranger's Hunter's Quarry, the Paladin's Challenge) but others (The Fighter's Steely Eyed Glare) feel a little out of place.The ranger's hunters quarry ability and the warlock's curse do not "mark" the target (as mark is a very specific condition that means that the target takes a -2 penalty to attack anyone other than the creature that granted the mark). AFAIK, only fighters and paladins have abilities that "mark" the target.
You are right, although I'd like to append that I think all (most?) Defenders will end up having this ability as well. The only Defenders we will have at release are Fighters and Paladins, but I could easily see Swordmages having some "magical mark" type of thingy.
Cheers! :)
Sure, a fighter could hack at people madly, "marking" everybody around him, so they get a disadvantage if they attack someone else. Beats me how he can keep that up for several people and still concentrate enough on his own target, but I'll let that slide for a while.
[Additional comments about the paladain ability snipped for space]
No, a fighter cannot do that. The fighter Marks one person by attacking one, and he gets to mark only one person.
Since each player can only mark one person, and each monster can only have one mark on them, it seems very fair and useful, at least as far as the rules presented in the preview I've seen.
I do not think for a moment that there will be defender Marking abilities that continue to work if the defender runs away. Everybody keeps pointing that out as completely stupid, and you know what? It would be. Which is why I don't think the rules allow it. We just havn't seen that part of the rules because the preview rules are just that, a preview. There will be no paladains marking a whole group of monsters and then running away. It's just not going to happen folks.
If it works for you then I am pleased that your are pleased.:)
Then everyone is pleased! (Really, I'd like it if I could pitch marking in a way that you'd dig, but, the way I see it, marking is a continuation of some of the ideas found in 3E's flanking. If you're changing what you found there, I expect you'll have to change what you find in 4E's marking, although no one will know until we have it!)Cheers! :)
Here Here. If, when the final rules for 4th edition come out, you find something that just doesn't make sense to you, then just change it.
Marking, like Flanking, may fall into that category for some. We don't have the final rules for this mechanic, and I'm quite confident that all the little inconsitencies that people have pointed out will be handled in the full rules write up.
Everybody plays this game for fun, and if changing the rules a bit makes your game better then good for you.
|
I think every system (my experience is limited to 3.0 and above) requires suspension of disbelief in various levels over various things. The issue is what aspects require this suspension, and how effectively groups and individuals reconcile these aspects with their intellectual need for logic and consistency in their games.
Some people have no issue suspending their belief, and don't really care one way or another as long as the rules provide for fun gaming. Others, however, derive a good deal of their enjoyment from a realistic imagining of the game world they are interacting with. For these people, the harder it is for them to realistically picture what is going on and the less logical their leaps of faith have to be, the more mentally frustrating it is for them to play with those rules.
I can see how strange it might seem for those in the former group to here those in the latter complaining about things that seem pretty trivial, but depending on your gameplay style, trivial might be the last thing you'd describe these as.
From what little I have seen and read, I think 4e requires a lot more suspension of disbelief than 3.5e. 4e also seems to require a different type of thinking logic wise that can, in some cases, run contrary to the logic built up by previous editions. To those whose basis of enjoyment stems from some of this logic, 4e might very well be a hard sell.
At the very least, this seems to be the sentiment of my group and with some whom I've spoken with.
|
|
Sure, a fighter could hack at people madly, "marking" everybody around him, so they get a disadvantage if they attack someone else. Beats me how he can keep that up for several people and still concentrate enough on his own target, but I'll let that slide for a while.No, a fighter cannot do that. The fighter Marks one person by attacking one, and he gets to mark only one person.
Actually, fighters CAN do that (paladins cannot). It is part of the trade-off between fighters and paladins and why both are good defenders, even in the same party.
Actually, fighters CAN do that (paladins cannot). It is part of the trade-off between fighters and paladins and why both are good defenders, even in the same party.Sure, a fighter could hack at people madly, "marking" everybody around him, so they get a disadvantage if they attack someone else. Beats me how he can keep that up for several people and still concentrate enough on his own target, but I'll let that slide for a while.No, a fighter cannot do that. The fighter Marks one person by attacking one, and he gets to mark only one person.
I am pretty sure both Fighters and Paladins can only have one target "marked" at a time, although I suppose I could be wrong. Do you have a source for this?
Cheers! :)
|
Here is (one of) my problems with Marking:
Two Evil Rogues (ER1 and ER2) ambush our Brave Fighter (BF) and the Innocent Citizen (IC) he is protecting in a dimly lit allyway. ER1 leaps out of the shadows and engages BF in melee. BF marks ER1 and bashes the crap outta him in the first round. "Now!" cries ER1, and ER2 leaps out from the shadows and teleports (or whatever works for that character in 4e) between the fighter and the retreating ER1. ER1, having had enough of the fighter's tough melee skill, draws his handy hand crossbow and .... is -2 to hit the IC because he is afraid of the fighter some distance away in the alleyway???
It just doesn't make sense. Suppose the ER's are far more deadly with ranged weapons than daggers, it is in the BF's best interest to keep his mark on the now distant (and unthreatened) ER to decrease the ER's chance of hitting than it is to switch it to the nearer ER. That screams "internally broken" to me, gamist or no. How in the name of the GrayhawkRealmsIconic gods can this marking thing make sense?
Edit: left out the whole IC thing in my haste to post
Here is (one of) my problem with Marking:
Two Evil Rogues (ER1 and ER2) ambush our Brave Fighter (BF) and the Innocent Citizen (IC) he is protecting in a dimly lit allyway. ER1 leaps out of the shadows and engages BF in melee. BF marks ER1 and bashes the crap outta him in the first round. "Now!" cries ER1, and ER2 leaps out from the shadows and teleports (or whatever works for that character in 4e) between the fighter and the retreating ER1. ER1, having had enough of the fighter's tough melee skill, draws his handy hand crossbow and .... is -2 to hit the IC because he is afraid of the fighter some distance away in the alleyway???
It just doesn't make sense. Suppose the ER's are far more deadly with ranged weapons than daggers, it is in the BF's best interest to keep his mark on the now distant (and unthreatened) ER to decrease the ER's chance of hitting than it is to switch it to the nearer ER. That screams "internally broken" to me, gamist or no. How in the name of the GrayhawkRealmsIconic gods can this marking thing make sense?
Actually Lich, I think you have it wrong. Its my understanding that the NPC marked has negatives to attack anyone EXCEPT the person who marked them. So the Rogue would still be able to shoot the Fighter at his full attack bonus as he flees (advances backwards?) from the scene.
Hope that helped! Cheers! :)
|
|
Actually Lich, I think you have it wrong. Its my understanding that the NPC marked has negatives to attack anyone EXCEPT the person who marked them. So the Rogue would still be able to shoot the Fighter at his full attack bonus as he flees (advances backwards?) from the scene.
Hope that helped! Cheers! :)
Yeah I fat fingered the post and cut out that part of it. When I re-read it I put it back in. Please read my edited post.
Sorry for the confusion.
Actually, fighters CAN do that (paladins cannot). It is part of the trade-off between fighters and paladins and why both are good defenders, even in the same party.I am pretty sure both Fighters and Paladins can only have one target "marked" at a time, although I suppose I could be wrong. Do you have a source for this?
Cheers! :)
Indeed! If you've got a full run down of the Marking mechanics I would love to see them posted in this thread. At this point, the only info i have is what was written on the DnD XP character sheets. (Which i don't have on hand at the moment I'm afraid.)
I feel that a full run down on the actual rules for this mechanic would dispell a lot of the problems that have cropped up in this thread.
Here is (one of) my problems with Marking:
Yeah, I'm not going to play that game.
If we were ever able to satisfactorily answer the first of your problems, you'd just find a new one, and we could answer that and you'd find another one, and on, and on, ad nauseum. If you want to lay out all your reasons for disliking marking, feel free to, otherwise you're just taking the piss.
Oops. Ok, that example makes more sense then! :)
At its most basic, I'd say we'd need an actual copy of the rules to really say whether or not the situation you propose is possible.
However, assuming it is, I would firstly say the Fighters ability isn't absolutely Fear based. Just as with flanking, something about his stance, his shouts, his whatevers, keeps the attention of ER1 (who is running away) focused on him. Maybe he whacked ER1 so hard ER1 is worried his kids are feeling it right then. ER1 knows he doesn't want to lose sight of that bad dude.
You can try to say "well, the Fighter no longer poses any real threat to ER1, so he chooses to ignore him" but this goes back to why I keep comparing it to flanking. If I'm between a dragon and a kobold, I can't choose to ignore the kobold and deny the dragon its flank bonus, even though the kobold poses no (comparative) threat. This is (to my mind) essentially the same situation. As I posted earlier, if you have a problem with flanking forcing you to always divert your attention between the two flanking you (even if one of them poses no real risk) then you'll likely dislike marking for a similar reason, and I'm not sure what the fix would be for you.
Hopefully, this helps more than my first post! Cheers! :)
Actually, fighters CAN do that (paladins cannot). It is part of the trade-off between fighters and paladins and why both are good defenders, even in the same party.I am pretty sure both Fighters and Paladins can only have one target "marked" at a time, although I suppose I could be wrong. Do you have a source for this?
Cheers! :)
Indeed! If you've got a full run down of the Marking mechanics I would love to see them posted in this thread. At this point, the only info i have is what was written on the DnD XP character sheets. (Which i don't have on hand at the moment I'm afraid.)
I feel that a full run down on the actual rules for this mechanic would dispell a lot of the problems that have cropped up in this thread.
Hrms. I *think* WotC may have posted a bit on marking in one of the design & develoment articles, but I don't really have time to search for it now. If no one can find it later this weekend, maybe I'll see if I can dig it up (assuming it exists!)
Cheers! :)
Indeed! If you've got a full run down of the Marking mechanics I would love to see them posted in this thread. At this point, the only info i have is what was written on the DnD XP character sheets. (Which i don't have on hand at the moment I'm afraid.)
I feel that a full run down on the actual rules for this mechanic would dispell a lot of the problems that have cropped up in this thread.
All the sheets are up at http://picasaweb.google.com/gertiebarden/4eCharacterSheets.
The fact is, we don't know the final rules for marking. I'm pretty sure they're still working out some of the mechanical details.
|
|
Yeah, I'm not going to play that game.
If we were ever able to satisfactorily answer the first of your problems, you'd just find a new one, and we could answer that and you'd find another one, and on, and on, ad nauseum. If you want to lay out all your reasons for disliking marking, feel free to, otherwise you're just taking the piss.
Yeah, it must be hard on you to have something you care so much about be kicked in the teeth and not be able to respond. Sorry about that.
And I appreciate you acknowledging that I can find more problems with such a broken mechanic. It saves us both a good deal of effort.
Hrms. I *think* WotC may have posted a bit on marking in one of the design & develoment articles, but I don't really have time to search for it now.
I believe you're thinking of this, but it doesn't contain any information that we didn't have after DDXP.
Hrms. I *think* WotC may have posted a bit on marking in one of the design & develoment articles, but I don't really have time to search for it now.I believe you're thinking of this, but it doesn't contain any information that we didn't have after DDXP.
Indeed sir, you are correct! Thanks! :)
Yeah, it must be hard on you to have something you care so much about be kicked in the teeth and not be able to respond. Sorry about that.
Look, if you don't like the "Looking into the fighter's eyes, you gain a newfound respect for her abilities" explanation, I don't know what to tell you. It just seems you're more interested in yelling and crying and shaking your impotent fists at an uncaring sky. And that's fine. I can respect that.
It's a game. Marking makes no less sense than Evasion or Multishot or letting someone with 5 ranks of Survival always know which way is north.
And I appreciate you acknowledging that I can find more problems with such a broken mechanic. It saves us both a good deal of effort.
You misunderstood me, then. I said you were more interested in crapping all over 4e than in discussing the strengths and limitations of marking.
The link was in this very thread! It shows how the fighter marks two enemies at once.
And I just noticed two more things:
1.: Only some classes can do it. If it's supposed to make so much sense to have people distract enemies or intimidate them or whatever, why can't everyone do it? Why can't that rogue mark one by constantly nipping at his heels?
At least flanking can be done by everyone.
2.: So the fighter can mark someone, and that someone now can't properly concentrate on others because the fighter is annoying him. But when he attacks the fighter, the penalty's gone. So far so good.
But why doesn't the fighter get any penalty? He marks one guy, attacks another, but the constant annoying his mark doesn't affect his own concentration at all. Even if he goes "thicket of blades" and marks several people, he has no problem about it.
It seems annoying people is very easy, you don't have to concentrate at all on it, but the annoyed guy cannot ignore those casual jabs at all.
Doesn't make sense.