Bagpuss
Legend
I wouldn't use Aggro in 5E...
Yeah the Mark mechanic is much better than Aggro, since it allows the DM or player a choice still. You want to avoid mind control with a martial class.
I wouldn't use Aggro in 5E...
Oh yes, please none, of that marking/agro nonsense...
Many other ideas here i like though
Sanjay
Marking is great. Aggro not so much. I hope they don't let peoples' ignorance of the difference influence the design.
1) The Fighter has to be an expert in using weapons. Including his bare hands (and his eblows, knees, feet, head, the latter in more than one sense )
2) I want the Fighter to adopt a particular style.
3) I want the choice of weapons to matter.
I think one key thing is that I want the Fighter to remain versatile.
While it may not be the whole point of the blog, it does present a veritably Straw Man of the 4e fighter.
It points out that the 4e fighter is a defender and (like most defenders) melee-focused. It makes it sound like that's the only thing 4e did with the fighter, force it into a Role (like very other 4e class).
A much more momentous thing happened to the fighter in 4e. It stopped sucking. It became the equal of other classes. It was as good (at least) a defender as the Paladin or Swordmage. It was on the same playing field as casters, able to bring some round-by-round versatility in combat, and some peak-power when really needed. Able to 'nova' in those benighted 5-minute workdays. That balance and near-parity was something the fighter never had before. Never.
And it's not even acknowledged, let alone valued.
Marking is not great. It is a prime example of rules first design. What does a mark mean in the game world? How does my mark "override" the one the Joe just put on the ogre?"
Making rules first then coming up with a floating half baked justification for them is board game design theory. It doesn't work as well for an rpg in which the rules must serve the game.