Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

[JamesonCourage]

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.

This post puzzles me. You want the GM to have the freedom to say who the NPCs attack, and who you attack, but you like taunts that take that choice away?

I think marks are actually closer to achieving your preference. While I'm not fan 4e overall, it doesn't actually force anything, just encourages it. Marks give penalties for not attacking, but you still have that choice. Taunts take that choice away (which you explicitly said you didn't want to happen).

That is, it seems like you'd rather go for the following: a monster uses an ability on you, and now you might get -2 on attacks other than on it. This is basically marking. Taunting would be: a monster uses an ability on you (save fails), and now you must charge it (even if you're a Wizard), taking a penalty on AC.

This is what you've proposed, essentially. I hate "and now the NPC must do this" style abilities unless they're mental domination-type effects (and the saves are basically made with a +5 bonus against such effects in my RPG). It's the same reason I didn't like Come and Get It (and a lot of other people didn't either).

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.

This is more doable when you have something closer to a mark, as compared to a taunt. The mark says "you're affecting him this way, how does he react using the GM's take on the animal/warrior/wizard's input?" The taunt says "you're affecting him this way, and he charges, no matter how out of character it might be."

Now, yes, I imagine you had restriction in mind, and I'd probably agree with them. But, in the end, I would probably rather go with leaving choice completely up to the GM, and just give him encouragement one way or another. I'm distracting him, does that mean he's more likely to attack me? Let the GM decide. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

This post puzzles me. You want the GM to have the freedom to say who the NPCs attack, and who you attack, but you like taunts that take that choice away?

I think marks are actually closer to achieving your preference. While I'm not fan 4e overall, it doesn't actually force anything, just encourages it. Marks give penalties for not attacking, but you still have that choice. Taunts take that choice away (which you explicitly said you didn't want to happen).

That is, it seems like you'd rather go for the following: a monster uses an ability on you, and now you might get -2 on attacks other than on it. This is basically marking. Taunting would be: a monster uses an ability on you (save fails), and now you must charge it (even if you're a Wizard), taking a penalty on AC.

This is what you've proposed, essentially. I hate "and now the NPC must do this" style abilities unless they're mental domination-type effects (and the saves are basically made with a +5 bonus against such effects in my RPG). It's the same reason I didn't like Come and Get It (and a lot of other people didn't either).


This is more doable when you have something closer to a mark, as compared to a taunt. The mark says "you're affecting him this way, how does he react using the GM's take on the animal/warrior/wizard's input?" The taunt says "you're affecting him this way, and he charges, no matter how out of character it might be."

Now, yes, I imagine you had restriction in mind, and I'd probably agree with them. But, in the end, I would probably rather go with leaving choice completely up to the GM, and just give him encouragement one way or another. I'm distracting him, does that mean he's more likely to attack me? Let the GM decide. As always, play what you like

Well first I didn't remember how the marks worked. But even the way they are described makes mo go huh it is another one of those dissociative mechanics 4E has that drive me crazy. Why are you taking penalties it is because you are having to keep an eye on the fighter? Or is it because of some other reason?

I don't have any 4E books available exactly what penalty do you take if you ignore the mark?

I don't look at it the same way if you have a will save involved then that does not mean an automatic success. The right taunt should make a person angry enough to attack. Say the person is taunting the wizard about killing his family. That is pretty harsh especially if the guy did kill the wizard's family. I like a mechanic that mirrors the possibility of losing control to the right taunt.

And the game already has things in it that takes choice away ever been dominated. held had ,sleep cast on you.

Like diplomacy what you say in the taunt would add to the difficulty or ease of the save. Saying something like I am going to find and rape your mother does not work if the person mother is dead or they don't who it is.

I want my mechanics to make some kind of sense not just be there for some kind of game balance. So the fighter has marked me why should I take a penalty on attacking the wizard if the fighter is not standing right there to threaten me, what if the someone else has moved to engage the fighter am I still marked and if I am why am I worried about it?

Taunting is a tactic that has been used by soldiers forever. It is a classic trope in fantasy. I would like to see some kind of mechanic to handle this. Sure it could be left to role playing but for the most part only the most dedicated role player will attack taking the disadvantages.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Well first I didn't remember how the marks worked. But even the way they are described makes mo go huh it is another one of those dissociative mechanics 4E has that drive me crazy. Why are you taking penalties it is because you are having to keep an eye on the fighter? Or is it because of some other reason?

Yes, this is important. If it's because "well, don't turn your back on the guy with the sword next to you!", then why don't all melee warriors (like rogues, who have backstab!) have marks, too? There definitely needs to be a good reason.

I don't have any 4E books available exactly what penalty do you take if you ignore the mark?

It depends on who's giving the mark. But, you should ask someone much more familiar with 4e than I am.

I don't look at it the same way if you have a will save involved then that does not mean an automatic success. The right taunt should make a person angry enough to attack. Say the person is taunting the wizard about killing his family. That is pretty harsh especially if the guy did kill the wizard's family. I like a mechanic that mirrors the possibility of losing control to the right taunt.

Wouldn't the Wizard be more likely to toss out a Fireball in that scenario, rather than charging in?

And the game already has things in it that takes choice away ever been dominated. held had ,sleep cast on you.

Yes, I like those blunted (my RPG gives +5 on saves against those effects, which are also harder to use).

Taunting is a tactic that has been used by soldiers forever. It is a classic trope in fantasy. I would like to see some kind of mechanic to handle this. Sure it could be left to role playing but for the most part only the most dedicated role player will attack taking the disadvantages.

Well, I have dedicated role players, and always have, so maybe that's why I'm not as worried about it. But, I really don't want to say to the Wizard "you're charging him with your dagger now, because he got under your skin and enraged you."

Instead, I want to tell my dedicated role player "he's getting under your skin, and you're enraged at him. What do you do?" I know he'll play on that rage, and I'm interested in him feeling that emotional his character feels and acting on it in-game. I don't want to separate that with a "and you're charging him", especially if he's playing an extremely docile or passive character. As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

Y
Wouldn't the Wizard be more likely to toss out a Fireball in that scenario, rather than charging in?


Yes, I like those blunted (my RPG gives +5 on saves against those effects, which are also harder to use).


Well, I have dedicated role players, and always have, so maybe that's why I'm not as worried about it. But, I really don't want to say to the Wizard "you're charging him with your dagger now, because he got under your skin and enraged you."

Instead, I want to tell my dedicated role player "he's getting under your skin, and you're enraged at him. What do you do?" I know he'll play on that rage, and I'm interested in him feeling that emotional his character feels and acting on it in-game. I don't want to separate that with a "and you're charging him", especially if he's playing an extremely docile or passive character. As always, play what you like

Maybe the wizard does attack him with magic. Taking a penalty on trying to cast the spell. I have never really sat down and thought this all the way through with exact rules. It is just something I would like to see.

You are lucky then I play with some role players and like I said some would play it out but a lot of them would not if it meant taking a penalty. And I think some kind of penalty should be involved otherwise why bother taunting.

To me the purpose of taunting is one of control trying to make the other person lose control, focus or even to attract that person's wrath away from another person.

 

[GreyICE]

Well first I didn't remember how the marks worked. But even the way they are described makes mo go huh it is another one of those dissociative mechanics 4E has that drive me crazy. Why are you taking penalties it is because you are having to keep an eye on the fighter? Or is it because of some other reason?

I don't have any 4E books available exactly what penalty do you take if you ignore the mark?

I don't look at it the same way if you have a will save involved then that does not mean an automatic success. The right taunt should make a person angry enough to attack. Say the person is taunting the wizard about killing his family. That is pretty harsh especially if the guy did kill the wizard's family. I like a mechanic that mirrors the possibility of losing control to the right taunt.

And the game already has things in it that takes choice away ever been dominated. held had ,sleep cast on you.

Like diplomacy what you say in the taunt would add to the difficulty or ease of the save. Saying something like I am going to find and rape your mother does not work if the person mother is dead or they don't who it is.

I want my mechanics to make some kind of sense not just be there for some kind of game balance. So the fighter has marked me why should I take a penalty on attacking the wizard if the fighter is not standing right there to threaten me, what if the someone else has moved to engage the fighter am I still marked and if I am why am I worried about it?

Taunting is a tactic that has been used by soldiers forever. It is a classic trope in fantasy. I would like to see some kind of mechanic to handle this. Sure it could be left to role playing but for the most part only the most dedicated role player will attack taking the disadvantages.

The basic mark penalty to hit is -2, the basic 'circumstance penalty' and it's basically saying 'it's harder to concentrate on whacking people when the big guy with the pointy stick is in your face.'

As for Fighter marks, they occur whenever the fighter makes a melee attack, and last for one round. So if the fighter attacks you with the pointy stick, you have to pay attention to the pointy stick. If the fighter does not attack you with the pointy stick, you do not have to pay attention to the pointy stick.

Note here that there are a host of other defender classes: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden, Battlemind, and all of their marks function slightly differently. The Swordmage, for instance, places a mystical Aegis on his target, that will follow the target absolutely anywhere, and (depending on the Aegis) can do anything from shielding everyone in the party from the target's attacks to allowing the swordmage to teleport across the battlefield and take a swing at the target.

The commonality to all marks is:
-2 penalty to hit (harder to hit your target when the defender is paying attention to you)
Opportunity attacks from the defender if he is adjacent

 

[MichaelSomething]

Marks are not a "you can't do this" ability. They are a "you receive a penalty if you do this" ability. That's a subtle distinction some people don't understand.

 

[Elf Witch]

The basic mark penalty to hit is -2, the basic 'circumstance penalty' and it's basically saying 'it's harder to concentrate on whacking people when the big guy with the pointy stick is in your face.'

As for Fighter marks, they occur whenever the fighter makes a melee attack, and last for one round. So if the fighter attacks you with the pointy stick, you have to pay attention to the pointy stick. If the fighter does not attack you with the pointy stick, you do not have to pay attention to the pointy stick.

Note here that there are a host of other defender classes: Paladin, Swordmage, Warden, Battlemind, and all of their marks function slightly differently. The Swordmage, for instance, places a mystical Aegis on his target, that will follow the target absolutely anywhere, and (depending on the Aegis) can do anything from shielding everyone in the party from the target's attacks to allowing the swordmage to teleport across the battlefield and take a swing at the target.

The commonality to all marks is:
-2 penalty to hit (harder to hit your target when the defender is paying attention to you)
Opportunity attacks from the defender if he is adjacent

Thank you. And that actually makes sense that the guy with the pointy thing is right there ready to whack you if you ignore him. So you are going to be distracted when you attack the other person.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, this is important. If it's because "well, don't turn your back on the guy with the sword next to you!", then why don't all melee warriors (like rogues, who have backstab!) have marks, too? There definitely needs to be a good reason.

IMO, it's simply a matter of differing fighting styles.

The fighter capitalizes on opportunities (when a marked target, aka someone he's pressing, attacks one of the fighter's allies) by getting extra attacks.

The rogue capitalized on opportunities (a target whose defense is impaired, aka granting combat advantage) by stabbing the target in a vulnerable spot (inflicting extra damage).

The fighter presses his opponent hard, hammering on their defenses and daring them to turn away, while the rogue bides his time and waits for an opportune moment to strike.

Also, one of the biggest complaints about 4e was that classes were too homogeneous. Giving everyone a mark would only increase such homogeneity. I think marks are a great addition, allowing players to truly fill the bodyguard role, but increasing homogeneity in a system that is already perceived by some to be too homogeneous would be a terrible move from a design standpoint.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Rogue - "Boy, I would sure like to attack that squishy wizard who is fireballing my friends, and my fighter friend even provided a flank. Sadly, NON-MAGICALLY, this other fighter is somehow subverting my high intelligence and forcing me to attack him."

Yah, that make sense. I can do without the "holding aggro" mmo-concepts.

AoOs and fighters blocking off access to the squishy underbelly of their party is what I prefer. Animals, monsters with low int, etc will fight whoever is attacking them, in my campaign. Smarter opponents will attempt to act like they are smarter and will try and take out the healers and wizards.

 

[JamesonCourage]

IMO, it's simply a matter of differing fighting styles.

I agree. My RPG has 9 different stances that warriors can adopt, and maneuvers you can use tied to those stances. One stance, Domination, if the more bodyguard-ish of the stances, giving people attacking allies nearby penalties, as you get in the way, distract, etc.

There needs to be a reason why it works that way, like I said. I think that there should be an example reason why, and it should be superficially viable to the majority of people that read it.

Also, one of the biggest complaints about 4e was that classes were too homogeneous. Giving everyone a mark would only increase such homogeneity. I think marks are a great addition, allowing players to truly fill the bodyguard role, but increasing homogeneity in a system that is already perceived by some to be too homogeneous would be a terrible move from a design standpoint.

Agreed, which is why I said " 'well, don't turn your back on the guy with the sword next to you!', then why don't all melee warriors (like rogues, who have backstab!) have marks, too?"

You need a reason, and it can't be "because he has a weapon." It has to be based on fighting style, for example. Personally, I like "auras" a little bit better: if someone you threaten attacks someone other than you, they take a penalty on the attack/damage roll. Easy to remember, no forgetting marks, and you're making life tough on them when they ignore you.

I'm also a fan of more varied mechanics to help break up the homogeneous feel that people seem to get. Warriors interact with the system mainly via stances, maneuvers, and attack rolls, while magicians interact with the system mainly via spell slots or spellcasting checks, while experts interact with the system mainly via skill checks. But, I do understand why people like a more uniform approach.

Anyways, as someone who dislikes powers as implemented, I've had success with stances/maneuvers than anyone can use as long as they qualify (fairly low prerequisites: 16 attribute score, a feat, one skill). There's no real big investment (a feat is about a fifth of a level in my RPG), so people have a lot of options early on, and can ignore them if they want to.

But, that's just my preference. I was just chiming in to say that 4e, with marks, is much closer to what I want than taunts are (if a taunt forces a creature to attack). As always, play what you like