Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wyckedemus" data-source="post: 6074509" data-attributes="member: 1079">So, I'm seeing people complain that martial abilities should not be &quot;charming&quot; and forcing opponents to do certain things against their will. And in extreme cases I agree. Even though 4E had some blatant powers I did not agree with, like &quot;Come and Get It,&quot; 4th edition did a very good job with some of their martial concepts. Let's take a look at one of them.Why not have Taunt use 4E's &quot;mark&quot; mechanic? &quot;Your opponent has a -2 penalty to any attacks that do not include you&quot;. Essentially, your opponent is so distracted by you that he has a hard time focusing on other opponents. The benefits include:A) It supports a storytelling function that you are getting the opponent's attention. (Good for the verisimilitude lovers.) B) It gives the opponent &quot;incentive&quot; to attack the Taunter rather than forcing an opponent to do something (Good for those who prefer the martial/magic differentiation, and for those who want logic to influence an interaction instead of a gamist ruling saying what happens.)C) You are still providing a mechanical penalty to your opponent that is not up to the DM's adjudication (Good for those who hate &quot;Mother May I&quot;.)D) With D&amp;D Next's bounded accuracy, the -2 to attacks is more impactful than it was in 4E. (For those that want the ability to matter.)E) It's easy. (For those who like it easy.)A more severe (or higher level) version of this would be to give the enemy disadvantage on attacks against people other than you.What do you guys think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wyckedemus, post: 6074509, member: 1079"] So, I'm seeing people complain that martial abilities should not be "charming" and forcing opponents to do certain things against their will. And in extreme cases I agree. Even though 4E had some blatant powers I did not agree with, like "Come and Get It," 4th edition did a very good job with some of their martial concepts. Let's take a look at one of them. Why not have Taunt use 4E's "mark" mechanic? "Your opponent has a -2 penalty to any attacks that do not include you". Essentially, your opponent is so distracted by you that he has a hard time focusing on other opponents. The benefits include: A) It supports a storytelling function that you are getting the opponent's attention. (Good for the verisimilitude lovers.) B) It gives the opponent "incentive" to attack the Taunter rather than forcing an opponent to do something (Good for those who prefer the martial/magic differentiation, and for those who want logic to influence an interaction instead of a gamist ruling saying what happens.) C) You are still providing a mechanical penalty to your opponent that is not up to the DM's adjudication (Good for those who hate "Mother May I".) D) With D&D Next's bounded accuracy, the -2 to attacks is more impactful than it was in 4E. (For those that want the ability to matter.) E) It's easy. (For those who like it easy.) A more severe (or higher level) version of this would be to give the enemy disadvantage on attacks against people other than you. What do you guys think? [/QUOTE]

Verification