If I had to come up with a mechanic to replace marking, I would base it on the Aid Another action in 3e. (+2 AC for adjacent character as a standard action.) Give some characters feats/powers/class features that let them attack when using it, use it on multiple targets, increase the bonus, or get an AoO.
D&D 5E D&D Next Blog - The Fighter
- Thread starter Astrosicebear
- Start date
X is fighting O and his baaad brothers. O and his brothers get no advantage for ganging up on X.He has to pay attention to all of them but his divided attention costs him nothing.
Flanking?
The [ CODE ][ /CODE ] tags help.
JohnSnow
Adventurer
There's a simple fix that would make the fighter just as effective an attack draw without the need for fiddly mechanics like marking.
The fighter should:
- be hard to hit (high AC)
- be tough (lots of hit points)
- hit frequently
- do lots of damage when he does hit
- be able to take out multiple weak foes with ease
Make all that true, and the bad guys HAVE to concentrate their attacks on the fighter because if they ignore the fighter, he'll cut them to ribbons.
Simple. Easy.
The fighter should:
- be hard to hit (high AC)
- be tough (lots of hit points)
- hit frequently
- do lots of damage when he does hit
- be able to take out multiple weak foes with ease
Make all that true, and the bad guys HAVE to concentrate their attacks on the fighter because if they ignore the fighter, he'll cut them to ribbons.
Simple. Easy.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
@ExploderWizard , on one hand that makes a kind of twisted sense to me, but in another I'm still just as confused as I ever was.
It as if someone said, "Tennis is a wimpy sport." You ask why they think that, perhaps expecting them to talk about guys running around in shorts, hitting a ball that is so soft that it can hit you going 90 MPH and not do any real damage. Not that you really buy that argument, but if you were going to play devil's advocate, you'd start with something along those lines.
And then they say something like, "Yeah, wimpy. The guys run side to side, back and forth, like souped up 'suicide' training drills, sometimes for 4 or 5 hours at a time, in extremely hot weather, and even occasionally on heat-retaining surfaces."
You'll also note that nowhere did I say that D&D combat was realistic.
Edit: JohnSnow's objection I understand. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand it. It's saying that marking is bad because it is like that fuzzy little ball hitting you in the arm.
It as if someone said, "Tennis is a wimpy sport." You ask why they think that, perhaps expecting them to talk about guys running around in shorts, hitting a ball that is so soft that it can hit you going 90 MPH and not do any real damage. Not that you really buy that argument, but if you were going to play devil's advocate, you'd start with something along those lines.
And then they say something like, "Yeah, wimpy. The guys run side to side, back and forth, like souped up 'suicide' training drills, sometimes for 4 or 5 hours at a time, in extremely hot weather, and even occasionally on heat-retaining surfaces."
You'll also note that nowhere did I say that D&D combat was realistic.
Edit: JohnSnow's objection I understand. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand it. It's saying that marking is bad because it is like that fuzzy little ball hitting you in the arm.
That might work for Fighter marks, but how does getting in someone's face override a god watching and punishing them for not engaging the paladin?
Or reverse marks. Everyone marks a preferred target and take a penalty attacking anyone else. The fighter gets a large bonus when striking someone who hasn't marked him. Marking in this form is an indication where attention is being given.
It applies to all of them. Despite the idea of 'power source' making all the sense in the world, many players can't stand the idea of them. Which is why you see people saying things like they wished the swordmage and bard were just wizard builds, rather than actual classes. Some players want to be able to make their "wizard" good at swordfighting. The class name 'wizard' trumps the abilities of the swordmage (which for all intents and purposes *is* a wizard good at swordfighting).
Now some of this has to do with the names of the powers (or 'spells'), in that the swordmage didn't get classic wizard spells, they got all kinds of new spells made up for the class. But believe it or not, WotC learned this lesson after the fact, which is why the bladesinger was made and which became a build of the wizard (rather than a build of the swordmage, which technically would have made more sense). It was made to give players what they wanted... a a weapon-using build for their *wizard* that got to use all the classic wizard spells.
At this point I almost wish they would just go ahead and change all references of "Martial power source" to "Fighter", all "Divine power source" to "Cleric", and all "Arcane power source" to "Wizard", and make all the classes that fall within them Themes for the three classes. Because that seems to be the only way to let people make the type of character they want with the name of the class they want.
JohnSnow
Adventurer
Edit: JohnSnow's objection I understand. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand it. It's saying that marking is bad because it is like that fuzzy little ball hitting you in the arm.
Actually, I don't think Marking is "bad" so much as I think it's unnecessary if the classes are designed right.
What I don't want is for the marking mechanic to be used as an excuse for making the fighter crappier (less dangerous) than they should be. The fighter draws attention because he's dangerous? But then, shouldn't he actually BE dangerous? And if the character is that dangerous, why does he even need the marking mechanic?
For example, prior to 4e, when the PCs got into a combat than involved an ogre, the ogre didn't need a marking mechanic. He's got a big scary club, lots of hit points, and he'll stomp you if you leave him on the battlefield, so you take the bastard DOWN!
Effectively, the ogre is "drawing fire" from his allies. The ogre is playing "defender" just by being there! Because, duh, he's dangerous.
Make sense?
ExploderWizard
Hero
True but the comment above gives the impression that marking is somehow quasi-realistic.
Opportunity attacks and such things don't make as much sense in an abstract combat system with somewhat long combat rounds. D&D combat isn't designed at its roots (static defenses, piles of hp) to be all that simulationist.
Dealing in all that detail yet not bothering to consider facing (locked in combat with a deadly foe then turning around to smack someone who runs past you doesn't give your original foe an opening?
) isn't very consistent in applying principles.Crazy Jerome
First Post
True but the comment above gives the impression that marking is somehow quasi-realistic.
Opportunity attacks and such things don't make as much sense in an abstract combat system with somewhat long combat rounds. D&D combat isn't designed at its roots (static defenses, piles of hp) to be all that simulationist.
Dealing in all that detail yet not bothering to consider facing (locked in combat with a deadly foe then turning around to smack someone who runs past you doesn't give your original foe an opening?
That I'll buy. I just want all the people selling it to apply that principle consistently throughout the model, if that's their rationale.
Consonant Dude
First Post
I'm ambivalent on this. And not just because of the newbie thing. There is something to be said about the ease of creating a 12th level fighter in 5 minutes which you just can't do with a wizard without sucking all the flavor out of the class.
I think the game needs a few straightforward classes and the fighting guy is an obvious choice. It made sense in old school DnD. It's attractive for newbies, it helps the DM create many NPCs quicker and finally it allows someone to jump in a game of any level in 5 minutes.
I hope all the classes will be as simple as possible but I'm skeptic it can be pulled off equally well for all of them.
True but the comment above gives the impression that marking is somehow quasi-realistic.
Opportunity attacks and such things don't make as much sense in an abstract combat system with somewhat long combat rounds. D&D combat isn't designed at its roots (static defenses, piles of hp) to be all that simulationist.
Dealing in all that detail yet not bothering to consider facing (locked in combat with a deadly foe then turning around to smack someone who runs past you doesn't give your original foe an opening?
Detail is fine when it's flavorful, thematic and easy to determine. Facing is difficult because you have to mark all your minis, or pogs, or have an idea in your minds eye of where a character is facing, and then you have to determine how that actually applies to the battlefield. Determining whether a foe is or isn't in a character's field of vision from 30 feet away is SURE to lead to arguments between player and DM, gridmap or not.
Marking, on the other hand, if flavorful and thematic for the fighter. It's the fighter, through his actions, saying "you're my target; I DARE you to ignore me." It's fun, it allows the fighter to protect the squishies, and it significantly increases damage output if the monster ignores the mark.
D&D is an abstract, non-simulationist system, true, but picking the level of abstraction is important - and making sure where you draw the line is fun and thematic for the character type is important. Thus why marking is a good thing to add and facing is not.
I never understand why people are so against marking. It lets a tank be a tank and at no point is it unrealistic or breaking of verisimilitude. Half the time it seems to me like the actual argument against marks is "because its from 4e and 4e is bad."
This line of conversation reminds me of a post I saw not too long ago from someone either here or on rpg.net that explained marks using pictures from Basketball and another with a mother polar bear standing defensively over a baby polar bear that said something like, "go ahead and attack the baby bear. Guess what will happen." Maybe someone will post it, because really, its the best justification for marks I've seen.
Last edited:
ExploderWizard
Hero
It isn't 4E per say. It is the concept of someone's "job" being to get hit thats the problem.
In short "tanking" needs to remain in pixel land and stay the hell out of tabletop play.
I think it is fine that by default fighter is simple and wizard complex. Give options to make the fighter complex and advanced players should be happy. I agree that having the wizard also be simple by default would be a bad idea. There are other classes that use simple casting mechanics.
JonWake
First Post
I was thinking of it as a 'block' mechanism. Could have been worded better. And it should probably be based on your Melee attack with a bonus for the shield used, to make it different from just your AC. I'm a fan of informal definitions.
I just realized that it also makes shield walls terribly effective. If you have four shield bearers with axes, you have a terrifying press. A group of hoplites with shield and spears makes charging into their ranks a daunting challenge. Form a square and you could hold off an orc horde with some grit and luck. A group of legionairres with scutum and gladius could alternate between defensive and offensive tactics, massacring waves of enemies.
The tactics and roles arise organically that way.
I just realized that it also makes shield walls terribly effective. If you have four shield bearers with axes, you have a terrifying press. A group of hoplites with shield and spears makes charging into their ranks a daunting challenge. Form a square and you could hold off an orc horde with some grit and luck. A group of legionairres with scutum and gladius could alternate between defensive and offensive tactics, massacring waves of enemies.
The tactics and roles arise organically that way.
The god's sense of fair play? The ability is Divine Challenge, which implies a sense of honorable combat inherent to it.
And that's assuming that a god is literally watching the fight, ready to smite the opponent for being naughty (but only a very specific kind of naughty). Which seems kind of silly to me.
It's Divine Magic. That doesn't mean the god is directly involved. And, well, Magic is Magic. What explanation is really needed? Maybe the Magic does involve a need to keep the attention of the marked target. In fact, the rules text actually reinforces this interpretation, thanks to the requirement to remain engaged, and the heavy penalty for failing to do so.
Last edited:
I'll be happy to have a D&D that's not so bound to minis and maps!
You know in OD&D (the Brown Box), there was no Thief/Rogue class. Should the Rogue/ set of classes be subsumed into the Fighter (again)? What difference is there between a stealthy, lightly-armored fighter and a brawny thief? Especially since they have the same "power source"..
You know in OD&D (the Brown Box), there was no Thief/Rogue class. Should the Rogue/ set of classes be subsumed into the Fighter (again)? What difference is there between a stealthy, lightly-armored fighter and a brawny thief? Especially since they have the same "power source"..
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Well newbie class means start at 1st level. All classes should have comparable complexity (or simplicity if you will) at level 1. Newbies shouldn't be starting at 12th level and if they are then they just need to deal with the complexity that comes with being 12th level. Trying to accomodate that rare corner case by oversimplifying design isn't fair to advanced players who want more to their fighter than spamming a basic melee attack every round.
Also, classes should be designed solely with players in mind, not NPCs. They should have separate rules for NPC builds. As a player, I want options and complexity to fine tune exactly the class I want to play.
As a DM I just want stats, some combat abilities, and a name. I don't want to build my NPC using the player classes. And as a player I don't want options stripped from a class just to accomodate DMs.
Should a DM be able to build NPCs using player classes? Sure, but that should be a secondary consideration when designing a rich class with diverse abilities that a player can customize and tweak to make the character they want.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I'm more sympathetic to this position than the one you are disputing, but I disagree with both the "all classes" part above and the thing about no newbies starting at 12th level.
I think there should be a wide range of relatively simple classes that cover major archetypes, and stay simple throughout all the levels. And then there should be an equally wide range of complex classes that cover major archetypes, and get as complex as the designers think the audience will appreciate.
My experience with players over about the age of 25 is that, largely unlike the younger audience, that if they want simple at 1st level, they want simple at 15th. Ditto for complex. And their time is precious enough now that they don't want the game hooking increased power level to increased complexity any more than is absolutely necessary to make it work. They get enough of that in their real lives.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Fighters have tanked in all editions of play. But prior to 4e there was no mechanics around it. It was purely DM fiat whether a monster would stop going after the squishy wizard and focus on the fighter.
As a DM this was unsatisfying to me. I had to metagame the monster's reaction to the fighter and his attempt to tank. In 4e, I didn't have to deal with that anymore. I just play the monsters however I want and mechanics take care of themselves. I find it liberating.
Similar Threads
- Locked
