Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

[GreyICE]

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.

And again this comes back to what you want out of a system.

There is no internal consistency in a system where there is no penalty for walking around the fighter, but it is assumed that monsters don't do it anyway. Internally inconsistent systems are generally bad. You're saying 'well, there's no particular reason that everyone in your world doesn't do this, but... don't let them do it anyway.'

Now in the real world, why did warriors in combat not walk around each other and go cut up the archers? Well, if they just walked around another guy with a sword and went after an archer, they guy with the sword they were walking around would probably cut them up real good. He'd probably also try to protect the archers, keep the enemy from reaching them, make it harder to wound them.

The mark system and defensive auras were two good solutions to make a mechanical representation of what happens when you try to ignore the big guy with the sword.

 

[Savage Wombat]

The mark system and defensive auras were two good solutions to make a mechanical representation of what happens when you try to ignore the big guy with the sword.

Attacks of Opportunity do the same thing. If you try to walk around the fighter, he hits you.

The problem is whether the players like the mechanism, and feel it's effective.

 

[GreyICE]

Attacks of Opportunity do the same thing. If you try to walk around the fighter, he hits you.

The problem is whether the players like the mechanism, and feel it's effective.

Sure. But attacks of opportunity are not unique to fighters, and also kill the fighter's ability to defend, say, the rogue. The rogue is up close and personal, so there's no attacks of opportunity occurring. Basically, in real world terms, despite the fact the fighter is literally swinging his sword at the person, in his face, weapon coming at him, there is no penalty for the person turning around and taking a swing at the rogue.

That seems wrong.

Whether people like the system personal opinion, but as far as it being effective, the mark system was very effective at letting the fighter defend his party members.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Now in the real world, why did warriors in combat not walk around each other and go cut up the archers? Well, if they just walked around another guy with a sword and went after an archer, they guy with the sword they were walking around would probably cut them up real good.

Basically, in real world terms, despite the fact the fighter is literally swinging his sword at the person, in his face, weapon coming at him, there is no penalty for the person turning around and taking a swing at the rogue.

So, logically, wouldn't basically all melee warriors be defenders? I mean, if you turn your back on them to attack someone else, wouldn't they "cut them up real good"? As always, play what you like

 

[LostSoul]

Suggestion: Turn-based initiative is the problem.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

No kidding. What is this thread about?

 

[GreyICE]

So, logically, wouldn't basically all melee warriors be defenders? I mean, if you turn your back on them to attack someone else, wouldn't they "cut them up real good"? As always, play what you like

Well, if we take, for instance, the Rogue, I've always figured that they don't properly engage a target. They weave around the target, looking for an opening, and strike a single quick blow. Rangers skirmish with the target, darting in and out for strikes. Fighters are the ones actively in your face, able to get in close with their target and keep them occupied.

Suggestion: Turn-based initiative is the problem.

Well yeah, but what's a good solution.

P.S. I appreciate how people feel a need to post to inform us that they know very little. If I may offer a suggestion to those people, there's a game called Dungeons and Dragons, that allows you to simulate fantasy combat on the tabletop, while role-playing as characters in that world. It's really cool and a lot of fun. I suggest you take the time to try it at some point.

PPS that kind of comment is an unwarranted insult and has awarded you an infraction. Don't snipe at other people - Plane Sailing, ENworld Admin

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well, if we take, for instance, the Rogue, I've always figured that they don't properly engage a target. They weave around the target, looking for an opening, and strike a single quick blow. Rangers skirmish with the target, darting in and out for strikes. Fighters are the ones actively in your face, able to get in close with their target and keep them occupied.

I don't know. I really wouldn't want to turn my back on a rogue. Or, as you said, really any guy with a sword. I don't see the big difference, as long as he's up close and got a pointy with my name on it. As always, play what you like

 

[GreyICE]

I think we're discussing what mechanics we want in 5E and what possibilities there are, not what edition we currently like to play.

Although I note that before 4E there was no punishment at all for turning your back on any character.

 

[LostSoul]

Well yeah, but what's a good solution.

Actions that take place at the same time. e.g. I try to move around the tank to hit the glass cannon, while the tank tries to stop me. There are many RPGs that do this.

That said, since I was suggesting that the problem was turn-based initiative, I'm open to arguments that it's not the problem.