4E: Mark on the Beast

James McMurray · February 28, 2008, 02:06:34 PM

The Marked thing looks too fidgety for my tastes. I'm pretty sure that if I'm GMing I'll have to be constantly reminded who marked who if there are multiple Defenders in the party. If I'm playing I'll either avoid the marking feats/talents entirely or forget that I have them.

Blackleaf · February 28, 2008, 02:20:15 PM

QuoteWhy do you post this tedious crap, Stuart?

I posted it because I thought it was interesting. This is an RPG discussion site, and there are a lot of people here who's opinions on RPGs and RPG design I like hearing. If not post discussions about this stuff here... then where?

Blackleaf · February 28, 2008, 02:22:59 PM

I think if you have to remain adjacent (if meleeing) or in line of sight (if an archer) then I could see how this makes sense. If you can mark a target and then retreat around a corner -- leaving the opponent with a penalty against other attackers right in front of it... that wouldn't make sense.

It really depends who gamey they've made it.

And I think keeping track of this for large battles will be another thing to incrementally slow things down.

kryyst · February 28, 2008, 03:26:19 PM

Worst rule ever (for an RPG). Ok maybe not the worst rule but it's getting up there.

Hmmm Have the Paladin Mark the target do his radiant thingy have the mage turn the Paladin invisible, mark dies slowly.

Settembrini · February 28, 2008, 03:29:03 PM

This is SOOOO totally like replacing Gygaxian building Blocks with...something else.

Ian Absentia · February 28, 2008, 03:34:00 PM

Quote from: kryystWorst rule ever (for an RPG).

But par for the course in a collectible minis game.

!i!

Blackleaf · February 28, 2008, 03:35:11 PM

I think that's the problem with overly gamey elements in an RPG. If you've set precedent that these things "just happen" and there's no real in-game explanation for them, then there's no way for the DM to fairly say "well, that's not really what it's meant to do -- so you can't do that."

I don't get the impression the intention was for the Paladin to stand on the other side of a river or chasm and use his Mark ability to start whittling down the enemy group... but I think that's the sort of thing you'll see players doing. From a game/tactics perspective -- why not?

James McMurray · February 28, 2008, 03:37:26 PM

It's quite possible that the ability itself will give us the Why Not. Since all we've got is a tiny blurb, its hard to say with anything resembling certainty that we'll now be watching power gaming paladins fight from across gorges.

Ian Absentia · February 28, 2008, 03:43:20 PM

Quote from: StuartI don't get the impression the intention was for the Paladin to stand on the other side of a river or chasm and use his Mark ability to start whittling down the enemy group... but I think that's the sort of thing you'll see players doing. From a game/tactics perspective -- why not?

I just recalled -- that's a tactic I used to my advantage in Age of Empires all the time. Your opponents will preferentially attack wounded units, so I'd trot one man out well ahead of the pack, let him take a few hits, then send him high-tailing to the rear of the massed ranks. The enemy would follow in hot pursuit, largely ignoring the healthy troops they were running past, and get cut to ribbons.

Granted, that was a computer game, but isn't that the medium that this Marked rule is supposed to be emulating? And isn't that exactly the sort of tactic that is going to emerge from such a rule?

!i!

James McMurray · February 28, 2008, 03:49:59 PM

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaGranted, that was a computer game, but isn't that the medium that this Marked rule is supposed to be emulating?

That's one theory, although I've never seen anyone official say they were trying to emulate computer games with the new edition.

QuoteAnd isn't that exactly the sort of tactic that is going to emerge from such a rule?

Impossible to tell anything beyond baseless speculation at this point. Unless you've got more info than the rest of us?

Blackleaf · February 28, 2008, 03:55:19 PM

I agree -- it's too early to say whether it'll have "glitches" or not. It could be good... being gamey it could create situations that are "good game play" but "bad believability". Hopefully the play-testing will have worked out these issues though.

Ian Absentia · February 28, 2008, 04:03:04 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayImpossible to tell anything beyond baseless speculation at this point.

It's plainly not baseless. Speculative, yes, but not baseless.

!i!

James McMurray · February 28, 2008, 04:28:50 PM

Ok. Whatever you want to call it. What it isn't, is factual.

Pierce Inverarity · February 28, 2008, 04:54:06 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayImpossible to tell anything beyond baseless speculation at this point. Unless you've got more info than the rest of us?

See, and that is exactly why threads like this one tick me off.

Baseless speculation about random snippets. What's the point?

Unless you've got more info than the rest of us?

James McMurray · February 28, 2008, 04:55:35 PM

*yawn* How very dull of you. Bye!