|
This was from the “Unstoppable Black Dragon” thread and rather than risk threadjacking that, I thought I would start a new one. I’m curious about what other people think about the “marking” system of 4e.
The "Mark" ability practically keeps the Monster (in this case the Dragon) from acting intelligent.
The Dragon should have killed of the ranged combatants first and then go for the melee ones.
From a sheer tactics perspective, the dragon would probably be better of, taking the 8hp damage but shredding the other party members who do more than 8hp damage.I have to see the "mark" rules in play and if they scale with level, but from the information I have at the moment, it seems as if is a tactics stopper for monsters.
If reality, the marked ability didn’t STOP the monsters from acting, it just discouraged them from doing so. They either have a minus to hit (in the case of being marked by the fighter) or took some damage (if marked from the paladin). In a couple cases the DM just had the creatures take the paladin’s damage and attacked a better target anyway.
Remember, since every creature had like 20-30 hp (if not more), 8 pts wasn’t all that much.As for marking, I think I like the mechanic itself, but it was my #2 problem with the system as far as slowing itself down (#1 being the 50/50 saves). The mechanic is easy to imagine as far as focusing on one enemy. Anyone that’s played a 3e character with the Dodge feat is familiar with each turn declaring “dodge buddies”. This felt very similar.
My problem came from the fact that it produced some strange and confusing situations when you COMBINE a bunch of characters that can all mark. Remember, as from the “Save My Game” article:
“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.”
True situation from the game I played:
(Not exactly a word-for-word transcript, by you get the idea)
DM: OK, well the guard will either hit the ranger or the paladin. Hmmm… he doesn’t want to take the paladin’s damage since the Halfling marked him, so he’ll attack the Halfling paladin.
Fighter: Actually I attacked the guard after the paladin and marked him.
DM: Oh right. And sorry the ranger actually goes next.
Ranger: well I wanted to use my hunter’s mark to get the bonus to hit him. But then he won’t have the minus to hit me from the fighter’s mark, right?
DM: Right.
Paladin: Wait a minute! What happened to feeling my god’s righteous fury if he didn’t attack me?
DM: Sorry, he’s… uh… far too busy worrying about the fighter and ranger to concern himself with your god’s fury.
Paladin: Well… great.
I’m just curious on what other folks think about this mechanic.
Good? Bad? Just slows things down?
-J
|
From a point of view of someone who hasn't used this ability or played with it, and from the point of view that the marks come from different sources (such as the above situation), I personally think they really need to change the fluff on the paladin's mark. It's a God, and thus should never ever be taken away by a mortal.
Perhaps making it so that the paladin is quite charismatic and calling out for his god righteous fury against the marked target, and then hitting the target himself when the mark ignores his attack.
Marking still doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can tell the situation (marking) is using a meta game explanation to begin with.
Person 1: "It does this."
Person 2: "Why?"
Person 1: Because it provides the class with X advantage/damage capability to balance (other class name here)."
Person 2: "No why in game does this class have this ability to do X?"
Person 1: "Ah, because.. (insert random explanation here)"
Thus, when they interfere with each other it falls back on the mechanics and not the explanation. One is the basis of the system and the other is the glossy paint on it.
In other words (to use often heard terms): The fluff was developed for the crunch and so the in game reasoning/logic flawed because of it. Instead of the more standard crunch being developed because of fluff which some times result in a power gap.
Keith Baker had an interesting comment about the paladin mark over on an EN World Thread:
One of the big issues here is scale of hit points. As I said, in the very first encounter I ran, the 1st level PCs were dealing with multiple opponents with around 30 hit points each. At 3rd level, they had an encounter with an enemy with 140 hit points. Taking that latter foe, divine challenge is still going to add up over time, and ensures that the paladin is always helping. But the 140 hp villain could easily afford to take that damage or to take an AoO if it served his needs... and beyond that, while he was the most dangerous opponent, he wasn't the ONLY opponent - so does the paladin challenge him, recognizing that it's not going to amount to much in the short term (assuming he's recognized how tough this guy is) or focus on eliminating the smaller threats?Meanwhile, compare it to the knight's "Test of Mettle". ToM is all or nothing. If the target saves, it was a wasted effort. If the target doesn't save, he MUST attack you, no matter how stupid that decision is. Of course, in the situation with the 140 HP baddie, it simply wouldn't work, because the knight can only challenge people weaker than he is. And beyond that, he can only use it a few times per day. By comparison, the paladin's challenge is a tool the character always possesses - it's a core power of the class, just as detect evil used to be. It may not successfully pull the target from the squishie, and it may not be as effective against a higher-level enemy - but in either case, it always counts for something, as opposed to the all-or-nothing ToM.
Beyond that, there is a matter of flavor. Set aside the tactics, and I still like the way it FEELS at the table. The paladin and the fighter have two different styles of defense. The fighter - which it sound like people don't have the full story on - has a technique that is purely martial and mundane, reflecting his skill at arms. He's tough, and once he's got his attention on you, it's hard to get away from him. The paladin, on the other hand, is empowered by a divine force. He cries "Stand away from my allies! Face me, fiend, or face the wrath of my god!" It's active, dramatic, and tied to his role as a vessel for divine power. Either the enemy meets him in battle, or he does suffer the wrath of that god. It makes the paladin FEEL very different from the fighter... just as the warlord and cleric feel very different despite covering the same "role". Of course, bear in mind, that the final version of the paladin's challenge is not the one you've seen, which taken at face value COULD allow the paladin to make the challenge and run away... at which point the flavor makes no sense. As per the final version the paladin has to be willing to face the enemy he has challenged. But it is still a matter of him calling on his bond to the divine to defend his allies - as opposed to the fighter relying on pure martial skill.
It's true that it punishes the enemy who chooses not to fight the paladin, just as an AoO punishes an enemy who decides to move. But from having DM'd lots of combats with a paladin in the mix, there were only a few cases where I found myself saying "OK, now he's really GOT to go after the paladin" (usually after the NPC in question had ignored the mark a few times and it was starting to add up); by and large, it was just another weapon in the arsenal, a way a PC had to damage the enemy if ignored... just as the wizard with the ranged attack would also damage the enemy if he was ignored. Face the paladin and take damage from the wizard, or power through to the wizard and suffer that damage from the paladin? Either way, it was much more enjoyable FOR ME than the knight's "You MUST fight me NOW" all-or-nothing ability. The challenge is an extremely useful ability - but until the enemy was actually down to 8 hit points, I always felt that the choice was in my hands.
The mechanic reminders me of the "Knight's Challenge" mechanic introduced in the 3.5 PHB2 book, as part of the knight base class. Since we know a lot of the later 3.5 mechanics were basically testing grounds for 4e rules, this perceived similarity most likely isn't a coincidence.
There was a lot of feedback on the WoTC boards when PHB2 was released about it being to derivative of MMO rules and mechanics, and I think similar things can be said about these Mark powers. That said, the knight's challenge is much more of a MMO style taunt, rather than some kind of debuff, which seems to be the case for the mark-style powers.
I'm not a fan of taking the game in this direction, as I as a DM am more than capable of providing sufficient AI to make such mechanics unncessary, as opposed to some game server out in MMO-land, but it would fall in line with 4e's stated goal of "making the DM's job easier" by taking away, or at least discouraging, that level of AI/ Monster tactical control.
edit:
he MUST attack you, no matter how stupid that decision is.
The caveats here being:
1. The target can use range and aoe attacks, if the player using ToM is included in the targets.2. Difficult terrain, loss of line of sight and effect negate ToM
3. IIRC, provoking AoO's to reach the player using ToM negates ToM.
4. There is no other penalty other than compelling the target of the attack.
5. ToM is a mind-effecting effect/attack, subject to the usual restrictions.
Do PC's take damage if they try to attack the enemy spellcasters instead of his bodyguards?
That is a good point that they haven't addressed clearly. Do NPC's have access to PC classes or is that seperate? All the examples I have seen are of monsters not NPCs per say.
Do PC's take damage if they try to attack the enemy spellcasters instead of his bodyguards?That is a good point that they haven't addressed clearly. Do NPC's have access to PC classes or is that seperate? All the examples I have seen are of monsters not NPCs per say.
I've seen player-race NPCs whose stats were built like monsters, but we've been told that adding PC classes to NPCs can be done. However, I have not seen any mechanics on how this works one way or another.
Do PC's take damage if they try to attack the enemy spellcasters instead of his bodyguards?That is a good point that they haven't addressed clearly. Do NPC's have access to PC classes or is that seperate? All the examples I have seen are of monsters not NPCs per say.
Whether monsters can be fighters or not doesn't much matter. (I suspect they will, just not the way they did in 3rd.)
You will, at some point, end up fighting other adventurers.
The King will have a bodyguard, and he'll be a high level fighter.
The Marking rules arn't a threat mechanic like in MMO's, they are more of a harring tatic.
Threat mechanics artifically determine what a monster attacks. The tank doesn't do the damage, he's just keeping the monster's attention. Monsters attack him irregardless of who is doing the real damage or healing.
The marking mechanics give martial combat classes an intresting set of tools that may or may not affect how the bad guys act. The dragon can ignore the paladin or fighter and eat the wizard. There's no actual way to force the DM's hand.
The only thing which I don't like about the abilities is that they are all mutually exclusive, and that makes no sense as far as the power descriptions go. I understand why they did this, mechanically having the party be able to team up on a single monster like that would be very powerful, but it seems very strange that the paladain's god ignores a kobald just because the fighter is focusing on him too.
The only thing which I don't like about the abilities is that they are all mutually exclusive, and that makes no sense as far as the power descriptions go. I understand why they did this, mechanically having the party be able to team up on a single monster like that would be very powerful, but it seems very strange that the paladain's god ignores a kobald just because the fighter is focusing on him too.
It also gives rise to the strange tactic of marking someone on your own side in order to break an enemy mark. I don't think we know enough yet to know if this would be useful, but it sounds as though it might. Of course, this would do further damage to the gameworld justification-- why on earth is a character doing that?
"First mark wins" would avoid having the PCs gang up without opening up such a can of worms, it seems to me. Though then you might mark your own teammates in some relatively harmless way as you entered combat, to prevent enemy marks. Hm. That's not good either.
("No character would ever do that, so it's not a problem" doesn't work for my particular player. He isn't unreasonable, but he's very much a tactician, and likes to develop and use good tactics. If everyone in the gameworld avoids a clearly optimal tactic, it just damages his belief in the gameworld.)
Mary
:shrug: Any in game mechanic can be fluffed away. I'm more concerned that they work together effectively than they be based on some artificial fluff framework. Fluff can be combed over and ... well, fluffed. But crunch is hard, and once set difficult to change.
As far as marking your own party members to overwrite a mark from an opponent, the designers have said it is possible but generally not a good tactic. I take them at their word (although others on this board have declined to do so) but no one will really know until the books hit the shelves.
Cheers! :)
It also gives rise to the strange tactic of marking someone on your own side in order to break an enemy mark.
[Snipped some very insitful comments for space.]Mary
Dang, how did I miss that? I must be losing my powergamer edge, I should have seen that immediatly.
In the end, I'm probably going to let everybody mark one enemy, and only an enemy they are activly engaing in combat, and let the chips fall where they may. If a party gangs up on a bad guy, then thats what happens. People in combat die quick when outnumbered five to one, and this way all the fluff and game world problems don't come up.
Yes, it's unfair to have a party of paladains all burning a single target who can only attack one of them, but fair's fair. The party will be in for a shock when it happens to them.
|
|
From your description, it sounds overly complicated and overly gamist. One might be acceptable (though I despise blatantly gamist mechanics), but both of them make a really bad combination. One more thing to houserule away if I would actually DM 4E. This also obliterates any "It's not like WOW!" arguments the pro 4E camp keeps stating over and over again. This is ported directly from WOW. If you can't acknowledge this, you are not being honest.
In the end, I'm probably going to let everybody mark one enemy, and only an enemy they are activly engaing in combat, and let the chips fall where they may. If a party gangs up on a bad guy, then thats what happens. People in combat die quick when outnumbered five to one, and this way all the fluff and game world problems don't come up.
Why wouldn't this just give the monster multiple choice. Say a party of 5 attack a monster and three of them mark it. Well when the monster attacks one of the three PCs marking it, then it has no penalty. If it attacks one of the two PCs not marking it then it takes the negatives (or whatever the drawbacks are for not attacking the person marking you). So not stacking, just give the monster a few more choices. Thus it makes parties think a little bit more as to who marks them.
I just can't help but think of my dog pissing on a fire hydrant when I read about this dynamic.
|
|
I guess I'm not being honest, because I don't see this as being like any MMO at all. The idea of the fighter/paladin as a defender type? Yeah, that's a lot more MMO than D&D. But marks? Hardly.
There's no marking in MMOs, not like this. There are taunts, threat generation functions, and the like. But they don't work anything like how marks do. If I'm playing a Guardian (LotRO rather than WoW), I'm not doing any damage or applying any debuff to a target just because I'm focusing on him.
I have a variety of attacks that make the monster act like I'm doing more damage than I really am (ie it thinks I'm the most dangerous foe and tries to squish me instead of the hunter or loremaster who is actually killing it) and I have a few "force taunts" where I can temporarily compel a creature to attack me no matter what (Good hunters do so much damage they can strip a mob off a guardian even with all the +threat).
The idea behind marks seems to be to give melee characters the ability to do something to those who try to bypass them, which is a very common PC tactic. The fighter, instead of the old "aid another" defense, now declares the nasty thing attacking the wizard as his mark. This effectively does the same thing, except the fighter is also free to lay down the smack.
Also, don't forget that in effect hunters and warlocks have marks also. The Hunter does bonus damage to his marked target and the warlock's mark is a straight DoT effect.
This isn't a straight port from WoW. Debuffs and DoTs are not what Tanks in MMOs do.
I'll admit that I'mot an expert on MMO's, but I'm pretty sure WOW has marks. They give you bonuses against an enemy or it gets penalties against you. I think the paladin one is called a seal. Other classes get this, and I think the MMO term for it is "dotting". 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. It might be okay for a minis game (which is basically what 4E is), but it has no place in the D&D RPG regardless of it's source.
I've seen player-race NPCs whose stats were built like monsters, but we've been told that adding PC classes to NPCs can be done. However, I have not seen any mechanics on how this works one way or another.
I'm sure you could just level up an NPC the same way you level up a PC, but one of the points made by the designers is that it's an awful lot of work for very little payoff. It's not so bad when you're adding three levels of fighter to an ogre, but if you want to make a 10th level orc fighter/rogue/cleric it can quickly get crazy. And your players aren't going to see any of that work; chances are they win in the surprise round and wipe the floor with him.
If you look over the kobolds from the LFR preview, you'll see that each has a couple abilities that help it define its role. So the slingers get a couple different ammo types, the skirmishers get +1d6 damage when they have combat advantage, the dragonshields can immediately shift whenever any enemy near them shifts. There's no need to actually go through the trouble of giving the slingers levels in scout and the dragonshields levels in fighter. The monsters are easier to create, easier to balance, actually feel different from one another, and they're certainly easier to run.
I'll admit that I'mot an expert on MMO's, but I'm pretty sure WOW has marks. They give you bonuses against an enemy or it gets penalties against you. I think the paladin one is called a seal. Other classes get this, and I think the MMO term for it is "dotting". 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. It might be okay for a minis game (which...
DoT would be an acronym for damage over time, a reference to abilities that, well, do damage over time instead of all at once. There are a few like it in 3.5, I think (a Druid one that does cold damage called Flashfreeze or something, and probably others).
Now, do tanks in WoW get marks ala 4E? I can't really say, as I play EQII, but to be honest there is nothing in EQII like 4E marks, nor can I comprehend how they would be implemented.
I think giving a Fighter an ability to choose an opponent and focus his attention on it is fine by me. So what if it gets -2 to attacks not against the Fighter? It's like the Fighter is inducing a reverse flank. If you look for negativity, it'll always be there for you to find.
Cheers! :)
I'm sure you could just level up an NPC the same way you level up a PC, but one of the points made by the designers is that it's an awful lot of work for very little payoff. It's not so bad when you're adding three levels of fighter to an ogre, but if you want to make a 10th level orc fighter/rogue/cleric it can quickly get crazy. And your players aren't going to see any of that work; chances are they win in the surprise round and wipe the floor with him.
If you look over the kobolds from the LFR preview, you'll see that each has a couple abilities that help it define its role. So the slingers get a couple different ammo types, the skirmishers get +1d6 damage when they have combat advantage, the dragonshields can immediately shift whenever any enemy near them shifts. There's no need to actually go through the trouble of giving the slingers levels in scout and the dragonshields levels in fighter. The monsters are easier to create, easier to balance, actually feel different from one another, and they're certainly easier to run.
I pretty much agree with you here, but I do hope they officially support this option in the ruleset, which I think they do based on coments from Mike Mearls.
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 think giving a Fighter an ability to choose an opponent and focus his attention on it is fine by me. So what if it gets -2 to attacks not against the Fighter? It's like the Fighter is inducing a reverse flank. If you look for negativity, it'll always be there for you to find.
Keith Baker explained the fighter's mark as basically the guy in full plate narrowing his eyes while staring directly into yours. Everytime you glance at him after that he's always staring daggers at you, and that's so unnerving you start spending extra time trying to track him around the battlefield and pay less attention to everyone else. Come to think of it, that's not so different from the Intimidate skill in 3.5.
I think giving a Fighter an ability to choose an opponent and focus his attention on it is fine by me. So what if it gets -2 to attacks not against the Fighter? It's like the Fighter is inducing a reverse flank. If you look for negativity, it'll always be there for you to find.Keith Baker explained the fighter's mark as basically the guy in full plate narrowing his eyes while staring directly into yours. Everytime you glance at him after that he's always staring daggers at you, and that's so unnerving you start spending extra time trying to track him around the battlefield and pay less attention to everyone else. Come to think of it, that's not so different from the Intimidate skill in 3.5.
Grumble - I hated abilities like this in 3.5 (I won't even allow the Knight Class at my table this annoys me so much)and am unhappy to see them continue. Characters and Monsters should never be forced to do things becuase of a threat or taunt or some such unless their is some kind of magical rational thats forcing the behavior.
Grumble - I hated abilities like this in 3.5 (I won't even allow the Knight Class at my table this annoys me so much)and am unhappy to see them continue. Characters and Monsters should never be forced to do things becuase of a threat or taunt or some such unless their is some kind of magical rational thats forcing the behavior.
However, marked creatures are not forced to do anything.
Grumble - I hated abilities like this in 3.5 (I won't even allow the Knight Class at my table this annoys me so much)and am unhappy to see them continue. Characters and Monsters should never be forced to do things becuase of a threat or taunt or some such unless their is some kind of magical rational thats forcing the behavior.I think giving a Fighter an ability to choose an opponent and focus his attention on it is fine by me. So what if it gets -2 to attacks not against the Fighter? It's like the Fighter is inducing a reverse flank. If you look for negativity, it'll always be there for you to find.Keith Baker explained the fighter's mark as basically the guy in full plate narrowing his eyes while staring directly into yours. Everytime you glance at him after that he's always staring daggers at you, and that's so unnerving you start spending extra time trying to track him around the battlefield and pay less attention to everyone else. Come to think of it, that's not so different from the Intimidate skill in 3.5.
This is very (and I mean very) similar to the idea behind a flank. And while I HAVE seen debates along the lines of "why do I have to pay attention to that other kobold behind me", most people shrug it off and accept that it's a good game element. I'd expect 4E's marking to end up the same.
Cheers! :)
I've seen player-race NPCs whose stats were built like monsters, but we've been told that adding PC classes to NPCs can be done. However, I have not seen any mechanics on how this works one way or another.I'm sure you could just level up an NPC the same way you level up a PC, but one of the points made by the designers is that it's an awful lot of work for very little payoff. It's not so bad when you're adding three levels of fighter to an ogre, but if you want to make a 10th level orc fighter/rogue/cleric it can quickly get crazy. And your players aren't going to see any of that work; chances are they win in the surprise round and wipe the floor with him.
If you look over the kobolds from the LFR preview, you'll see that each has a couple abilities that help it define its role. So the slingers get a couple different ammo types, the skirmishers get +1d6 damage when they have combat advantage, the dragonshields can immediately shift whenever any enemy near them shifts. There's no need to actually go through the trouble of giving the slingers levels in scout and the dragonshields levels in fighter. The monsters are easier to create, easier to balance, actually feel different from one another, and they're certainly easier to run.
Does that mean that monsters get to mark as well?
This is very (and I mean very) similar to the idea behind a flank. And while I HAVE seen debates along the lines of "why do I have to pay attention to that other kobold behind me", most people shrug it off and accept that it's a good game element. I'd expect 4E's marking to end up the same.
Cheers! :)
I disagree flank is like a combat advantage (as referred to in 4e). If you are flanked you can attack whoever you like without anything happening to you.
I know you said like so not exactly the same but it just seems different to me.
I dont understand the theoretical game advantage of marks at all. It seems the theory is that you want the fighter to be able to stop bad guys attacking your wizard. In the old days that meant the wizard just stood behind the fighter out of range of the bad guys, if the bad guy ran past the fighter he whacked him
Marking is the same as a free Aid Another, but you effect the targets rolls instead of aiding your Ally's defense. Having the wizard stand behind the fighter is a viable form of defending, to be sure. This is just another form of defense that gives the defender some options and makes for interesting decisions on the battlefield. It in NO WAY forces the target to attack the defender or interferes with the target's free will--it just provides a consequence to the target if he attacks anyone other than the defender. Monsters can Mark too, you know. Interesting choices on the battlefield is a good thing, IMO.
I really don't like not being able to stack Marks on a target, though, but I suppose that could become very unbalancing, don't know.
Also some other very interesting abilities the fighter has (I can't remember the names right now, damn it) are the shield push (moving the target 5' after attacking) and the very nice ability to stop a target in its tracks if the target tries to move past the defender and draws an attack of opportunity. That's very useful. Standing in a hallway and monsters start trying to trickle past to hit your wizard? Attack of opportunity and stop them in their tracks.
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.
One more reason not to change to 4e.
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"?
Seriously, the fighter's mark at level 1 is almost the same, with virtually the exact same consequences, as being flanked in 3.5.
No. It isn't.
Flanking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Further reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.
Marking lets you swing your own cod around in bragging rights.
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.
One more reason not to change to 4e.
Just for clarity's sake, again, there is NO aggro mechnic in 4E. The DM is free to attack whomever (or whatever?) he likes.
Cheers! :)
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"?
Originally I was going to agree wholeheartedly with KaeYoss, but then I read the post above both of yours. I've not been a fan of 4e because I don't think there is anything that bad about 3.5. Now that I see this "marking" mechanic, I'm wondering if there IS a difference between the two systems outside of magic and the way classes work.
Seriously, the fighter's mark at level 1 is almost the same, with virtually the exact same consequences, as being flanked in 3.5.No. It isn't.
Flanking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Further reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.
Marking lets you swing your own cod around in bragging rights.
I could also say that if a defender marks a creature and then, let's say the controller makes it harder for the marked creature to get to the defender or makes it easier for the striker to also hit the target, then I can also say that marking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Furthering reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.
Seriously, the fighter's mark at level 1 is almost the same, with virtually the exact same consequences, as being flanked in 3.5.No. It isn't.
Flanking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Further reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.
Marking lets you swing your own cod around in bragging rights.
Marking gave the Paladin bonuses against the target he had marked, and I'll assume the Fighter gets those abilities too. Do you mark the person you want to go whack? Do you mark the big baddie moving towards the squishies in the back to hopefully convince him to leave them alone (or at least give them a little cover)?
If you focus on the negative, it's all you'll ever see.
Cheers! :)
I could also say that if a defender marks a creature and then, let's say the controller makes it harder for the marked creature to get to the defender or makes it easier for the striker to also hit the target, then I can also say that marking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Furthering reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.Seriously, the fighter's mark at level 1 is almost the same, with virtually the exact same consequences, as being flanked in 3.5.No. It isn't.
Flanking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Further reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.
Marking lets you swing your own cod around in bragging rights.
And flanking doesn't? I'm no fan of "marking" or any of this 4e crap, but that's a sword that cuts both ways- does flanking punish cooperation?
Flanking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Further reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.
Could you provide a list of combat actions in 3.5 which encourage and reward teamwork? Because all I can find besides "flanking" is "aid another". Everything else you can do on your own. Heck, even spellcasters don't need assistance to cast their spells. I guess they just like swinging their cod around in bragging rights.
It's really disingenuous for most of the anti-4e posters on this thread to say "I don't like marking because it's an aggro mechanic" and when someone points out it's not, to argue "Well, it forces the monster to act in a certain way" and when someone points out it doesn't, to argue "Well, it doesn't reward group tactics." When, in fact, the whole point of marking someone is to try to convince them to stay away from your party members.
If you don't like the mechanic, and you refuse to be swayed by any arguments to the contrary, say that up front. Don't keep inventing excuses as to why you don't.
And flanking doesn't? I'm no fan of "marking" or any of this 4e crap, but that's a sword that cuts both ways- does flanking punish cooperation?I could also say that if a defender marks a creature and then, let's say the controller makes it harder for the marked creature to get to the defender or makes it easier for the striker to also hit the target, then I can also say that marking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Furthering reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.Seriously, the fighter's mark at level 1 is almost the same, with virtually the exact same consequences, as being flanked in 3.5.No. It isn't.
Flanking encourages and rewards teamwork and group tactics. Further reinforcing the social aspect of D&D.
Marking lets you swing your own cod around in bragging rights.
No, they both can encourage and reward teamwork.
Marking as we know it:
"Marked is a new condition that defenders and some soldier monsters can apply to their enemies."
"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."
Quotes from Here.
-------------------------------------------------
It is not flanking. OK? Good.
I am up in the air about this change leaning towards "not in my game".
Why? For one thing it seems to be an effect with an explanation loosely tied to that effect. If it is based on intimidating your foe, fine. But then why would it apply to things immune to fear, with low (or no) Intelligence or no reason to feel threatened? (The example from the article above shows marks being used on ghosts.) Why is there no intimidate checks?
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?
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.
The descriptive elements boil down to (IMHO): Your enemy is scared or something. Gesh don't sweet it works and junk.
I don't know about you but I'm really not super-distracted-can't-focus-on-my-target threatened by a guy with a sword if he isn't in reach of me. (Especially if I have a sword and shield and even leather armour.)
These effects are not flanking or any other 3.5 mechanic. (And yes I do get rid of stupid loopholes in the rules). I find that marking lacks proper internal consistency and logic.
I guess writing this up has shown me I do not like marking.
----------------------------------------------------
EDIT:
Aid Another
Aid Another
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent’s next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.
You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character’s skill check.
See also: Aid Another during a skill check.
Flanking
Flanking
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent.
Doesn't sound like marking at all to me.
It's really disingenuous for most of the anti-4e posters on this thread to say "I don't like marking because it's an aggro mechanic"
Ummm, whatza "aggro" mechanic?!?!?!
(Where I grew up, it would probably refer to someone that fixes farm equipment...)
Greg
It's really disingenuous for most of the anti-4e posters on this thread to say "I don't like marking because it's an aggro mechanic"Ummm, whatza "aggro" mechanic?!?!?!
(Where I grew up, it would probably refer to someone that fixes farm equipment...)
Greg
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 ...)
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! :)
ArchLich, the mechanic of Marking is nearly the same as Aid Another in 3.5, but instead of aiding your party member, you impose the penalty on the target. Makes it more exciting than Aid Another, IMO.
The only part I don't like about Marking is that you can't have multiple Marks at the same time. I understand, though, if this was done for game balance.
It's probably a matter of taste. I care, as a gamer, about balance more than I care about what in-game reason they give me. I can justify any rule in game terms. It's probably gamist, but my group leans in that direction far more than any other, so that may be a reason why I like the rule and others don't. No biggy. My players are the type (have been for the last 20+ years) that would kick someone out of the game if they dared to start voice acting or other such things (and, yes, it has happened before, heh).
Ummm, whatza "aggro" mechanic?!?!?!
An aggro mechanic is a usually deterministic algorithm for figuring out the target of a particular monster in a computer game. This usually depends on how much damage a particular player deals to it. Once of the primary tactical decisions a party needs to manage is how much damage the spellcasters can do without pulling the monster off the tanks.
As has been noted before, this has virtually no relation to what we've seen of marking in 4e. In an online game, monsters will preferentially attack tanks as opposed to squishies if the aggro is right. In 4e, I'm still going to blow right past the fighter and smash the spellcaster, "-2 to all my attacks" be damned.
If you don't like the mechanic, and you refuse to be swayed by any arguments to the contrary, say that up front. Don't keep inventing excuses as to why you don't.
Now reverse the polarity of that statement, and apply it to yourself.
Aggro is a type of farm equipment?
Aggro as in short for Agriculture. As opposed to Aggravation.
Aggro is a type of farm equipment?Aggro as in short for Agriculture. As opposed to Aggravation.
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! :)
It's really disingenuous for most of the anti-4e posters on this thread to say "I don't like marking because it's an aggro mechanic"Ummm, whatza "aggro" mechanic?!?!?!
(Where I grew up, it would probably refer to someone that fixes farm equipment...)
Greg
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 ...)
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! :)
Agriculture can as be called agro-culture (informal).
Thus agro(blank) usually used to mean farm or grain related being referred to in a short hand type speak.
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.)