[4e] Non-Stacking Marks

[LibraryOgre]

Ok, a bit of an odd thought:

Can my Paladin or Fighter mark a PC in order to clear the opponent's mark?

[Yakk]

3 reasons:

Nope. Both Fighter and Paladin require the target be an Enemy. ;-)

Nope. Because that is dumb. No, really, it is. Think how cheesy it is.

Nope. Because you end up having to risk, or actually do, damage to the target. So.. even if you where allowed to do it, it wouldn't be a smart move.

[RTGoodman]

I guess you could, but either way it's gonna hurt someone at least a little. Fighters have to hit to mark, so I guess at best a Fighter could use an unarmed strike or something else with really low damage and only do a melee basic attack for minimal damage. A Paladin would have a harder time - he'd have to spend a minor action, end his turn next to the intended ally or hit him with an attack, and then the ally has to attack him or suffer some radiant damage. Of course, I guess a Paladin could just hit the target with an attack that also let him heal an ally and then make sure his Cha is so low the damage isn't that much.

Nope. Both Fighter and Paladin require the target be an Enemy.

I'll agree with the other reasons, but I don't completely agree with this. The Paladin's Divine Challenge lists the target specifically as "one creature," not "one enemy" even though that distinction's made clear elsewhere.

For the Fighter, though, Combat Challenge does indeed talk about you attacking "enemies" to mark them.

[LibraryOgre]

Nope. Because that is dumb. No, really, it is. Think how cheesy it is.

Oh, I agree it's dumb and cheesy. That doesn't mean it won't work. ;-)

I need to go get my book to respond the other ones, however.

[LibraryOgre]

I can't really argue the "enemy" line, so I'll ignore it for this purpose; I'll point out though, that, unlike Divine challenge, Combat Challenge doesn't have a power write-up, which is where the specification of creature comes from. If your DM is flexible enough to allow you to mark your ally*, these will work pretty well.

Fighter Tactic: Fighter Bull-rushes friendly character, possibly incurring Attack of O... I'm sorry, Opportunity Attack from enemies. Bull Rush pushes ally away; as forced movement, does not provoke attack of opportunity (on your ally). He takes no damage from a bull-rush, just a forced move. You mark your ally (clearing the previous mark), allowing your ally to either make a slightly less effective attack OR do something else... like heal the two of you. If he happens to move or shift further away, you choose not to take your opportunity attack.

Paladin Tactic: Similar to the fighter, you Bull-Rush your ally out of the way, and mark him. Now, he can't really attack (since he'll be damaged), but he can do other things... Second Wind, use a Utility Power or a non-attack class feature. The Paladin even has it easier; can mark someone in 5 squares of him, without the need to smash him back. Mark your wizard ally so he can clear the opponent's mark, second wind, and get out of there. Next round, you challenge someone else, instead of trying to attack your ally.

For the verisimilitudinous, your defender has more or less forced the former target out of consideration... more or less shouted "Take on someone your own size!"

*Of course, there's always folk like my wizard... technically, I'm they're ally because I'm not fighting them. I am, however, stealing whatever I can, and hold most of them in contempt.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd allow my players to clear an opponent's mark as a free action, any time. Maybe it's not RAW, but it makes sense - you need to concentrate on an opponent to mark it, after all.

Misunderstood the question. No, I don't think if it's possible to do what the OP asks.

[Totally Guy]

What about curses? A warlock might have a friend and they know they'll be fighting a warlock. Can the warlock curse his friend so that the enemy warlock can't? Ok, it burns a minor action each round to maintain but still funny.

Can't remember the stacking rules on Quarry.

[ghost_warlock]

Fighters have to hit to mark...

Actually, no they don't.

In combat, it’s dangerous to ignore a fighter. Every
time you attack an enemy, whether the attack hits or
misses, you can choose to mark that target.

p. 76, My emphasis.

Essentially, by RAW, a paladin could mark an ally (because Divine Challenge targets a creature, not an enemy) but a fighter couldn't (because the class ability specifies that the target is an enemy). By RAI, neither should be able to mark an ally because it's cheesy.

What about curses? A warlock might have a friend and they know they'll be fighting a warlock. Can the warlock curse his friend so that the enemy warlock can't? Ok, it burns a minor action each round to maintain but still funny.

Warlock's Curse targets only enemies.

Can't remember the stacking rules on Quarry.

You can only have one creature as your quarry at a time, and Hunter's Quarry only targets enemies.

[Kurald Galain]

What about curses? A warlock might have a friend and they know they'll be fighting a warlock. Can the warlock curse his friend so that the enemy warlock can't?

No, but a single enemy could conceivably be marked, cursed and quarried simultaneously.

[Starsinger]

What about curses? A warlock might have a friend and they know they'll be fighting a warlock. Can the warlock curse his friend so that the enemy warlock can't? Ok, it burns a minor action each round to maintain but still funny.

About this. It doesn't say the target must be cursed by you in order to take the extra damage. I'm taking this to assume that a party with two warlocks can both deal extra damage to the solo (without constantly recursing) but only the warlock who actually cursed it would gain the Pact Benefit from the creature dying.

So, therefore, the friendly warlock cursing his friend would just deny the enemy warlock the pact benefit.

[Totally Guy]

No, but a single enemy could conceivably be marked, cursed and quarried simultaneously.

That happens every combat doesn't it?

[Tadanori Oyama]

That happens every combat doesn't it?

In my groups to does.

The enemy line is the big problem there but I just wouldn't let my players do it. It sounds pretty cheap.

On the other hand, it also makes for an interesting visual in the game world, particularly with the fighter.

More importantly to me it raises the idea of a "counter mark". Maybe it would be a good idea to design a Fighter power that allowed a Fighter to literally unmark their ally by attacking the enemy and undoing whatever they had done.

Since a marking seems to prepresent some advantage the marker possesses that allows them to penalize the marked, it could be undone.

I know there's a Ranger Utility that allows them to shift and unmark themselves so there's at least some preident. Now I'm gonna have to think about this...

[Chronos]

What edition is this? I can't find anything about "marking" in the first edition rules .

[Blackfang108]

What edition is this? I can't find anything about "marking" in the first edition rules .

If Serious question: 4e
If joke: *groans*

[ShaggyMarco]

RAW seem to indicate that Fighter's CAN'T mark allies, as their ability specifically spells out enemies.

That said, Paladin's Divine Challenge just says 1 creature in range--so it looks like an ally could mark you to get rid of another mark.

I'm actually okay with this difference--being Paladin marked would be tricky, because then, at least for the next turn, you couldn't attack anyone without taking damage.

But wait--if the Paladin marks you on his turn, then doesn't attack you or stay adjacent to you, this gets cheesey. The act of marking puts an end to your old mark. Then the Paladin's mark goes away because he didn't engage you. No pain, and you are able to take the marks off of friends--though you do have to spend minor action to do so.

This might be fair for Paladins...definitely NOT fair for Fighters.

[DM Raven]

I would say no...simple reason because it's trying to exploit the rules to gain an advantage in combat.

If I had to bull**** it, I would say something like...

Paladin
When you issue a divine challenge to a target, you are channeling the fury of your deity to force the enemy into combat. For this power to function, you must have legitimite battle rage towards your foe. You cannot channel this type of rage towards your ally unless you actually intend to attack him and consider him a foe.

Fighter
Your training requires that you only use this tactic on targets you consider your enemy. For your mark to work correctly, you must be hostile towards your target throughout the battle, which is part of the reason you limit his movement and actions so much as combat progresses.

[Chronos]

I would say no...simple reason because it's trying to exploit the rules to gain an advantage in combat.

Then again, swinging a sword to do 2d6 damage is also trying to exploit the rules to gain an advantage in combat. This is just trying to exploit rules in a different way than might have been anticipated.

Fluff-wise, though, you could also make a case that removing a negative condition imposed by an enemy is a perfectly reasonable thing for a defender to do.

[ShaggyMarco]

Rather than cheesy mis-uses of the rules, I'd rather see new defender powers that remove marks.

A level 2 Utility Mark for Fighters that transfers a mark from an ally to the fighter, maybe a higher level utility or daily that eliminates the mark altogether.