Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

[GreyICE]

Not quite true. In earlier versions (pre-3E), facing affected whether or not a character received their shield bonus to AC. And in 1E, a rogue could backstab if attacking from directly behind his target.

There have been a number of attempts to mimic real world melee combat, with varying degrees of success. Personally, I hope 5E has a fairly rules-lite base, with most of the mechanics mentioned in this thread presented as options. Nothing wrong with one group using marks and auras, another using attacks of opportunity, another ignoring this altogether.

AHHHHHH FACING

Sorry, too many "I knocked over the mini now what" moments with that concept

Anyway, I'd hope that they at least do an Aura Defender (the essentials Knight, for instance) in the core build. That's streamlined, rules light, and works well (maybe too well... super-duper knight indeed).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I really like marks, alot.

I like the idea that a soldier trained to not let up is better at holding your attention then a duilist looking to stab you, but not by much. the -2 and the free attack work OK.

On the other hand the Mark I LOVE, is DIvine challange.

I love the idea of the enemy orc working his way toward the wizard just to hear Sir Goodey goodey yell "Orc, you and me, ONE SHALL STAND, ONE SHALL FALL"

If that orc wants to kill the wizard he can try, but ignoring that paliden may just be the last mistake he ever makes.

 

[satori01]

There is nothing inherently sticking about Battleships, dreadnaughts, or Ships of the Line in the history of Naval Combat...but the reason naval fleets typically fought battles with ships of the same class squaring off, is the risk in allowing the opposition's heavy ships to get access to more squishy ships was too great.

The mathematics of 1e made fighters the battleship of combat. As a DM you wanted to make sure you engaged the Fighter, because combats were quick when you leave a Double Weapon specialized character free to roam.


"Stickiness" powers are needed in 4E because of the Role based mathematic expressions. Defender attacks were more for delivering 'Marks' than damage expression, because Striker damage is more akin to anti ship missiles of today. Striker damage so outweighs everyone else's, and there is very little disparity between AC and HP for Strikers vs Defenders, that the mathematics require those effects for Defenders to not be ignored.

Change the mathematics and said effects are not needed. I would like to see "stickiness" options available for classes, trade an attack for a trip and the like. Passive auras unfortunately are not the sexiest things.

 

[Fanaelialae]

There is nothing inherently sticking about Battleships, dreadnaughts, or Ships of the Line in the history of Naval Combat...but the reason naval fleets typically fought battles with ships of the same class squaring off, is the risk in allowing the opposition's heavy ships to get access to more squishy ships was too great.

The mathematics of 1e made fighters the battleship of combat. As a DM you wanted to make sure you engaged the Fighter, because combats were quick when you leave a Double Weapon specialized character free to roam.


"Stickiness" powers are needed in 4E because of the Role based mathematic expressions. Defender attacks were more for delivering 'Marks' than damage expression, because Striker damage is more akin to anti ship missiles of today. Striker damage so outweighs everyone else's, and there is very little disparity between AC and HP for Strikers vs Defenders, that the mathematics require those effects for Defenders to not be ignored.

Change the mathematics and said effects are not needed. I would like to see "stickiness" options available for classes, trade an attack for a trip and the like. Passive auras unfortunately are not the sexiest things.

Based on my recollection, ignoring the fighter just meant that the fight was quickly over for the wizard or thief who became the target instead. Monsters are always expendable, but in the kinds of campaigns I like to play the PCs are not (which is not the same thing as the PCs cannot die, but rather simply that they shouldn't drop like flies).

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't like the idea of marks. As the DM I should have the freedom to say who my NPCs attacks. Also if the PCs fighters get to mark so should the NPCs. As a player I want the freedom to chose who I attack.

I like taunts because it comes with a save to resist. As a matter of fact I like the idea if you fail a save you charge the person making the taunt and take a - to your AC because it enrages you.

When I DM I play fair if you hurt a monster or an animal of low intelligence they are going to go after the person who hurt them.

I play by NPCs depending on their intelligence, wisdom background. The lighter armor NPCs is going to try and stay away from the heavily armored fighter waiting to take his head off and go after the more squishy wizard.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't like the idea of marks. As the DM I should have the freedom to say who my NPCs attacks. Also if the PCs fighters get to mark so should the NPCs. As a player I want the freedom to chose who I attack.

You do, you simply are encouraged to attack a specific player because of that player's ability. Some NPCs do have marks. I remember that any group of monsters that could be arguably formed into a fighting force(such as orcs, goblins, kobolds, ect...) had at least one member who could mark. In fact that operated very similar to the PC party.

When I DM I play fair if you hurt a monster or an animal of low intelligence they are going to go after the person who hurt them.

Sure, marks only apply to higher intelligence creatures anyway, in some cases they don't work if you don't share a language too. So calling the Orc's mom something dirty isn't going to bother him because he doesn't speak elven.
Elven Fighter: {in elven} "Your mom slept with a kobold!"
Orc Warrior: {in orcish} "Why is that guy over there singing?"
Orc Warchief: {orcish} "I think he said he wants to sleep with flowers."
Elven Fighter: {elven} "I eat hamburgers on wednesdays and I think pink is pretty!"
Orc Warrior: {orcish} "WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY MOTHER!?"

This was always entertaining when I told players to RP their taunts/challenges...before they made an knowledge check to know if the orcs even understood them.

Magical challenges were still effective no matter what, hey they're magic. But fighters have more fun.

I play by NPCs depending on their intelligence, wisdom background. The lighter armor NPCs is going to try and stay away from the heavily armored fighter waiting to take his head off and go after the more squishy wizard.

Sure, tactical combat, I think marking/challenges/taunts only contributed to this to make it more tactical. It was difficult until higher level to engage multiple targets and maintain your mark on them.

 

[mkill]

I can't believe that after 4 years, it's still necessary to explain marks and the difference to WOW aggro mechanics to people. Was that a cozy rock you were hiding under?

So for the 100th time:

Aggro: Monster dumb. Monster played by AI that doesn't want to waste computation cycle. Monster attack big tank because tank aggro high.

Mark: Give monster choice. A) attack big tank who can easily take hit B) attack squishy guy who can be killed easily, but then get whacked over head by big tank

The reason marks work better in an RPG is that in an RPG, you have a DM, who can use a human brain to determine monster actions. The DM can decide whether the monster is
A) dumb and just attacks whoever is in its face
B) smart but a chicken and tries to get away from defender before attacking squishie
C) smart but suicidal and attacks the squishy even if it gets whacked by the tank

Also, for the 100th time, there is nothing supernatural or anime about fighter marks. It's a guy, with a big sharp stick, right in your face, ready to whack you if you try something he doesn't like. All the fighter mark says is "I'm watching you, kid". Give me a baseball bat, I'll stand next to you, and try to hit my buddy over there, and I'll demonstrate for you.

Now get off my 4E lawn.

 

[Elf Witch]

You do, you simply are encouraged to attack a specific player because of that player's ability. Some NPCs do have marks. I remember that any group of monsters that could be arguably formed into a fighting force(such as orcs, goblins, kobolds, ect...) had at least one member who could mark. In fact that operated very similar to the PC party.

Sure, marks only apply to higher intelligence creatures anyway, in some cases they don't work if you don't share a language too. So calling the Orc's mom something dirty isn't going to bother him because he doesn't speak elven.
Elven Fighter: {in elven} "Your mom slept with a kobold!"
Orc Warrior: {in orcish} "Why is that guy over there singing?"
Orc Warchief: {orcish} "I think he said he wants to sleep with flowers."
Elven Fighter: {elven} "I eat hamburgers on wednesdays and I think pink is pretty!"
Orc Warrior: {orcish} "WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT MY MOTHER!?"

This was always entertaining when I told players to RP their taunts/challenges...before they made an knowledge check to know if the orcs even understood them.

Magical challenges were still effective no matter what, hey they're magic. But fighters have more fun.

Sure, tactical combat, I think marking/challenges/taunts only contributed to this to make it more tactical. It was difficult until higher level to engage multiple targets and maintain your mark on them.

I only played a few sessions of 4E and that was in 2008 so I am not really sure how it works.

I am leery about game mechanics especially non magical mechanics that force someone to do something in combat especially if there is no save involved.


Language plays an important part in being able to taunt. But taunting can be fun. And it is a classic tactic in a lot of fiction.

 

[Sunseeker]

I only played a few sessions of 4E and that was in 2008 so I am not really sure how it works.

I am leery about game mechanics especially non magical mechanics that force someone to do something in combat especially if there is no save involved.

There were two kinds of marks in the game, magical and non-magical.
Magic marks(like the paladin's) are easier to apply, but harder to maintain and deal less damage.
Non-magical marks like the Fighter are easy to maintain, but are restricted in terms of range, but tend to have much higher damage(free melee basic upon breaking the mark).

The marks don't force you to do anything. You don't have to attack the fighter, and many of my NPCs would go after other, often more wounded players at the expense of the mark because that was their(read:my) whim. Sometimes marking too many things backfires as all the targets decide to pound on the tank. In my last 4e game a mark-heavy fighter dropped A LOT because of this, hey he enjoyed it, but still, over-marking can backfire.

The Paladin's marks were generally restricted to triggering once per round. The fighter got an OA any time their mark was broken. The paladin had the range to draw in more enemies with the mark, but the fighter was a better mark-enforcer.

All marks were also limited in duration(without specific feats), and had to be maintained. Maintaining a mark was usually easy, attempt to attack, or end your turn adjacent to your marked target. But marks generally only lasted a single round, so if you didn't maintain your mark, your enemy go to go off and do whatever.

In general, if your targets kept their range, melee tanks couldn't keep up their marks, and then the enemies were free to roam around as they pleased. Plus only one mark could be active at any given time, so you couldn't just bounce any enemy around without some serious coordination...and the DM playing along(I didn't, my NPCs got pissed and attacked whoever they wanted when people started playing keepaway with marks).

In the end, marks are simply about encouraging NPCs to go after the meat-shields, the NPCs don't have to. Especially if the mark's damage is low and the NPC's health is high.

Language plays an important part in being able to taunt. But taunting can be fun. And it is a classic tactic in a lot of fiction.

Yes, which is why I made my player RP their taunts, people came up with some creative ways to do so, and the better their taunt, the more I respected their mark. If they didn't care, neither did their target.

 

[nightwyrm]

I am leery about game mechanics especially non magical mechanics that force someone to do something in combat especially if there is no save involved.

Well then, you'd be glad to know there's no compulsion involved in marking. If you're marked by a fighter, you can either choose to attack the fighter or you can attack someone else at a penalty and provoke an attack from the fighter. You always have a choice.