D&D 5E Mark -- I don't get it

[Runny]

Is the Mark action in the DMG meant to replace an attack? It sounds like it is meant to be done with an attack as a free rider, but it only really makes sense if there is a cost, such as giving up an attack.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Nope. It's a free add-on, to make martial/defender types more "sticky." Which I assume is partly why it's an optional rule.

 

[Mark CMG]

Mark -- I don't get it

Huh? What? Oh . . .

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Is the Mark action in the DMG meant to replace an attack? It sounds like it is meant to be done with an attack as a free rider, but it only really makes sense if there is a cost, such as giving up an attack.

It's just an option - choose to give yourself advantage on opportunity attacks, but the enemy knows you're doing it. They'll be doing the same to you. It encourages people to stick around and swing it out, instead of running for the squishy back-line.

Another option is to implement it partially, such as limiting it to those with the Protection fighting style (Fighters and Paladins only).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's just an option - choose to give yourself advantage on opportunity attacks, but the enemy knows you're doing it. They'll be doing the same to you. It encourages people to stick around and swing it out, instead of running for the squishy back-line.

Another option is to implement it partially, such as limiting it to those with the Protection fighting style (Fighters and Paladins only).

my group has talked about allowing it to only work if you take a -1 to the attack roll, and maybe making a feat to make you better at ti...

 

[Runny]

It doesn't seem balanced. What is the downside of always saying, "I mark" every time you attack.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It doesn't seem balanced. What is the downside of always saying, "I mark" every time you attack.

They'll be saying it right back when they attack you.

 

[Fralex]

If you run in, attack, and run back in the same turn, your opponent won't get the chance to mark you, I guess. So it adds a grey area in between "completely engaged in melee" and "attacking from a distance" where OA's are less of a risk with hit-and-run tactics. I don't have the book, though. Can you mark as many guys as you want, or are you only allowed to mark one at a time? That would force someone engaging multiple opponents to asses the threats each one poses to themself and others and choose which one they least want to escape.

 

[Gadget]

my group has talked about allowing it to only work if you take a -1 to the attack roll, and maybe making a feat to make you better at ti...

<shudder>...3e design lives on!

 

[Rune]

If you run in, attack, and run back in the same turn, your opponent won't get the chance to mark you, I guess. So it adds a grey area in between "completely engaged in melee" and "attacking from a distance" where OA's are less of a risk with hit-and-run tactics.

I really don't think this is an issue (if the mark only applies to OAs--don't have the DMG yet). The point of marking is to hold a position. Who cares if you're already in it when you mark--or if the marked mark is already up on it? Either way, all you're doing is saying, "I will hit you if you try to run by me."