4E: Mark on the Beast

Blackleaf · February 28, 2008, 10:20:27 AM

From the 4e article Marking Marked and Other 4E-isms

QuoteMarked is a new condition that defenders and some soldier monsters can apply to their enemies. By itself, it gives a penalty to your target if it attacks anyone but you, which helps defenders and soldiers fulfill their role on the battle grid. Often, though, there are other effects that serve as riders on the marked condition. For instance the paladin's divine challenge -- that class's signature marking ability -- does some amount of radiant damage once a turn when the target of divine challenge attacks someone other than the paladin who marked him. Of course, the fighter (the other Player's Handbook defender) features a different effect, dissuading her mark from taking the battle elsewhere. Oh, and this is really important to remember -- a creature can be marked by only one opponent at a time and new marks supersede old marks.

So like the combat advantage granted by flanking, marked is relational in nature, but unlike flaking, it can't be apprehended purely by looking at the battle grid. In simple battles with one defender or soldier, you won't have any trouble at all -- just have the defender's player keep track of it -- but when you have two defenders in a group (like I do in my Castle Greyhawk paragon-tier game) or a group of mark-using soldiers in the encounter, keeping track of the condition can be a tad tricky, and you'll probably want to use a rigorous method for tracking the condition throughout the rounds.

Interesting. Maybe a bit fiddly. (Maybe a lot fiddly if you need to use beads) It sounds like it might have been inspired by the Aggro mechanics in WoW.

It's hard imaging how this would play out - - and whether it would feel natural or artificial and gamey (which is the same complaint I had about Charisma extending the Rogue's Positioning Strike).

kregmosier · February 28, 2008, 11:02:19 AM

wow...that's straight out of a MMORPG/RTS game.

NEXT: Grappling to incorporate →↓↘P as Special Prestige Combat Maneuver!

blakkie · February 28, 2008, 11:09:53 AM

It does sound kind of fiddly. I wonder how often it'll be like Dodge where the player forgets to use it. I remember seeing this person at a convention where he had written on the back of his table name tag "I have Dodge" to help him remember to use it.

James J Skach · February 28, 2008, 11:28:31 AM

I'm not an MMO player, so maybe one could explain how this is not like aggro?

At the last convention, the youngster I've mentioned in another thread had the possibility of different conditions affect the entire party depending on what innate power he felt like wielding. He had different table tents made up to remind everyone else what bonuses they were receiving from his various auras...

blakkie · February 28, 2008, 11:31:56 AM

'Aggro' is forcing an attack to focus. This is softer than that. Basically getting in the way of the opponent attacking others but not preventing it, or in the case of the Paladin doing it with 'magic'. Like a Fire Shield but protecting others instead of himself.

An interesting idea, I just have a bad feeling of how it'll play at the table.

Trevelyan · February 28, 2008, 11:51:59 AM

Quote from: James J SkachI'm not an MMO player, so maybe one could explain how this is not like aggro?

Aggro = "you must attack me!"

Marking = "you can attack whoever you like, but if you turn your back on me I'll make you pay"

Ian Absentia · February 28, 2008, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: TrevelyanAggro = "you must attack me!"

Marking = "you can attack whoever you like, but if you turn your back on me I'll make you pay"

Semantics.

Marking = "you must attack me if you don't want to suffer a penalty for attacking anyone else!"

!i!

jrients · February 28, 2008, 01:04:37 PM

I don't consider the distinction only semantical. As a DM I would probably treat it as aggro nine times out of ten, but I could take the penalty and attack someone else when called for.

Ian Absentia · February 28, 2008, 01:23:13 PM

Quote from: jrientsI don't consider the distinction only semantical. As a DM I would probably treat it as aggro nine times out of ten, but I could take the penalty and attack someone else when called for.

One is "aggro" and the other is "dis-incentivising".

!i!

Spike · February 28, 2008, 01:27:40 PM

I find it interesting that you can't have different characters mark the same dude.

I can see the intent behind it but it seems like too metagamy a ruling. In character you have to combatants tag teaming one guy, he can't ignore either one, but he can't focus on both at the same time, classic double team.

Here is a mechanic to make 'ganging up one someone' mean something specific (if you actually, you know, use teamwork) and they metagamed it away.

Sean · February 28, 2008, 01:41:06 PM

Quotekeeping track of the condition can be a tad tricky, and you'll probably want to use a rigorous method for tracking the condition throughout the rounds.

I know I will never DM 4e.

Pierce Inverarity · February 28, 2008, 01:42:18 PM

Why do you post this tedious crap, Stuart?

What is this, an adjunct WOTC forum where we dissect the random daily 4E announcement?

James McMurray · February 28, 2008, 01:48:30 PM

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhy do you post this tedious crap, Stuart?

What is this, an adjunct WOTC forum where we dissect the random daily 4E announcement?

LOL

not enough self control to ignore threads with 4E in their title
+
too lazy to start threads about things you want to discuss
=
pathetic and weak

Don't like it the current 4E emphasis? Man up and do something about it or avoid it. Or you could just whine instead.

Pierce Inverarity · February 28, 2008, 02:02:15 PM

What is this, an Exalted thread in rpg.net Trouble Tickets?

James McMurray · February 28, 2008, 02:05:28 PM

Whatsamatter Pierce, get bored with your stacking blocks and couldn't find your squeaky keychain?

4E: Mark on the Beast

Sean