Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

[Endur]

As a long-time tank, I despise taunts, marks, etc. I'd much rather have a high damage attack than a high threat attack.

That said, I like the challenge concept. If I damage an opponent, and nobody else damages the opponent, it makes sense that the opponent would try to damage me back.

edit:
Taunts are a World of Warcraft mechanic for insuring that a monster will attack a tank if the monster would rather attack another party member.
Mark is a D&D 4e rule for fighters (and some other classes) that insures that a monster that has been attacked by a fighter will attack the fighter instead of other party members.
Challenge was a D&D 3e PHB2 mechanic that Knights had to insure that a monster might in some circumstances attack the knight in preference to other party members. Above I'm not really referring to the specific Knight ability, rather the generic idea of a 1 on 1 challenge (or possibly 1 to many), where a single PC holds off an army (or Gandalf vs. the Balrog).

 

[Kynn]

As a long-time tank, I despise taunts, marks, etc. I'd much rather have a high damage attack than a high threat attack.

That said, I like the challenge concept. If I damage an opponent, and nobody else damages the opponent, it makes sense that the opponent would try to damage me back.

Cool, hope you get what you want in a module.

 

[GreyICE]

A tank with high damage and no control is called a striker.

The mark mechanic is very solid, and if they replace it with something just as good.

 

[trancejeremy]

I don't know what any of that means, and I hope 5e can be played in a state of ignorance.

 

[Minigiant]

I have no problem with there being a spell or special magical ability that compels enemies to fight the user.

I have no problem with characters openly challenging enemies to duels.

I have no problem with enemies choosing to fight the most damaging enemy.

But I even as a 4e fan, I never liked non-magical marks that much.

 

[Sunseeker]

I really enjoyed marking targets. In order for a tank to tank, they really do need some kind of persistent way to grab a target's attention. Magic or non-magic, this kind of system I think is very useful, fun and necessary to tanking.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The fact that a "tank" needs a power to do his job does not necessitate that D&D requires such a power, or a "tank" in the first place. Please note the 3x+1 threads about removing prescribed roles from D&D.

That said, I'm OK with the introduction of more specific defender mechanics. I'm just concerned that they may work against the bog-simplicity WotC seems to be trying for in core.

 

[GreyICE]

The essentials defender had some bog simple auras that took the place of marks, and were quite adequate for the job. Hell, it's possible that the single best defender build right now is an essentials build.

That being said, the non-magical marks (all... one of them) always made sense to me. The Fighter marked his enemies for one round by... making a melee attack against them. Anything he attacked with a melee attack was marked, for one round.

What does that represent? It's really hard to get away from the big guy who is trying to separate your limbs from your body. Pay attention to him! He is big and angry and wants to cut you!

(most of the rest of the marks were mystical. Paladins were literally a divine punishment, Warden's allowed the Warden to have plants just grab the person and haul them around, Swordmage marks were literally mystical homing beacons, etc.)

 

[Mattachine]

Without a specific rule for making enemies attack, or for providing penalties for not attacking, we have the situation in earlier editions, and the beginning of 3e: enemies just go around the "tanks".

 

[Croesus]

Without a specific rule for making enemies attack, or for providing penalties for not attacking, we have the situation in earlier editions, and the beginning of 3e: enemies just go around the "tanks".

I'm not sure I see the problem.

If we were talking about a boardgame or minis game, where your opponent (the other player) always tries to maximize the moves of his forces, then specific rules for freezing certain units makes sense.

But in a roleplaying game, I expect the GM to play the opponents, whether creatures or npc's, appropriately. Most of the time this seems to end up with the various fighter types hacking on each other, but a smart opponent will sometimes do something else, just as the player characters would. And various creatures will have their own motivations that will guide their actions. All of that lends verisimilitude or whatever to the game.