Defenders handing out free attacks (to opponents)

[Aust Diamondew]

-2 attacks doesn't seem any worse to keep track of in a miniatures free game.

Where as giving a free attack would be 1 more dice roll and be a lot worse for the defender.

On a map with out a grid map the hard stuff will be sliding. Not what would essentially be a minor debuff in 3e.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Sure, but then they'd still get to attack on their turn. Similar to marking, but... ouch.



The DM is the one the generally will be making decisions for the marked. If the DM isn't playing nice (at least for some definitions of the word), then the games already gone to hell.

I don't think I get your point.

Sorry, if I'm being unclear.

The point of being a defender is to have opponents attack you instead of your allies. The easiest way to do that would be to stop wearing armor. However, defenders love armor so instead you could hand out free attacks in order to make sure opponents favor attacking you rather than your allies.

Right now, you make your opponents attack you rather than your allies, or they suffer damage or penalty. You will soon figure out how to make it impossible to attack you and therby turning your abrasiveness into a weapon. This could be a problem.

 

[Mort_Q]

You will soon figure out how to make it impossible to attack you and therby turning your abrasiveness into a weapon. This could be a problem.

So you're worried about the marking and running?

Cheese. Hard to make rules against cheese without creating other problems downstream.

I would just apply the you must be actively engaging or moving to engage the marked creature in melee combat or the mark fades at the end of your turn caveat to any player that wants to be too cheesy too often.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I would too. But the fix is both wordy and abstract.

Attack me in full and get 1 extra basic attack.

 

[Mort_Q]

I suppose. You could go further, but it takes away from the player can usually do something interesting or useful on their turn.

The DM controlling the NPC, when given a choice of targets, will choose the defender over all others.

Blech... yours is better.

That said, Marking, on the other hand, likely has other powers tied to the status of being marked.

We shall see.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I suppose. You could go further, but it takes away from the player can usually do something interesting or useful on their turn.

The DM controlling the NPC, when given a choice of targets, will choose the defender over all others.

Blech... yours is better.

That said, Marking, on the other hand, likely has other powers tied to the status of being marked.

We shall see.

This schtick would have to be an immediate action. Something you do triggered by an opponent moving and attacking.

We shall indeed see but aren't you a little bit curious how this idea would look for the paladin? The fighter hands out free attacks but the paladin hands out free healing! He says "Attack me in full and receive [monster level+paladin CHA] hp worth of healing.

Ah man, this is a sick idea.

 

[fedelas]

I tried a little bit of playtesting last two weeks, we run 5 combat encounter and all the time the great part of the attacks monster made was at the defenders (fighter and pally), IMO the "marking" thing work pretty well, most of the times was a pretty bad choice for me, the DM, to attack someone isn't the PC who had put the mark (taking free attack or free radiant damage). The thing i've noticed instead is that very little time the defender really put on effect their "retribution" (i.e. no-time an opponent had taken damage by the divine challenge and only once from an attack of the dwarf fighter via shifting), but i think that's fine too as they really focus the opponents in attacking them instead of the "squishier" member of the party.

 

[trayburn]

I've played through a good bit of Keep on the Shadowfell already, plus I played at DDXP both LFR previews. Let me be clear about this in : MARKING WORKS!

If marked by a Paladin, that Paladin is now subject to the requirement to strike you every round or lose that mark. If you don't attack him in return, he'll hit you for a little bit of radiant damage, AND you'll be at -2 on whatever else you did, which is essentially -2 levels of effectiveness for monsters.

If marked by a Fighter, then you're REALLY in trouble. He doesn't have to attack you back, but did have to attack you to mark you to begin with. And should you try to attack someone else, again the -2 to hit. PLUS, should you try to move away from the Fighter, he's going to hit you AGAIN.


-2 to hit is a big difference, I assure you, and ignoring either of these marks is a bad plan for a monster.

 

[DM_Flick]

At first the mark and avoid thing looks like it would work, but as a DM what I would do is avoid the pally and go after a nice squishy mage or priest. The -2 would be no big deal and the pally is going to feel pretty bad watching them get beat on.

The whole point is to protect the soft targets and take the damage.

 

[Storminator]

At first the mark and avoid thing looks like it would work, but as a DM what I would do is avoid the pally and go after a nice squishy mage or priest. The -2 would be no big deal and the pally is going to feel pretty bad watching them get beat on.

The whole point is to protect the soft targets and take the damage.

When I played with the DDXP pregens, I put the priest next to the fighter, had the fighter mark the target and the priest use Priest's Shield to increase both fighter and priest AC. Essentially the fighter gets +1 AC and the priest gets +3. Double teamed the monster (dratted kobolds!) until dead, then moved to the next one. Pretty effective.

PS