Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Improved Marked Option for 5e.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9033016" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Given the idea is intended to support more tactical play, making it <em>this</em> simple seems to contradict the goal of the thing.</p><p></p><p>Maybe I'm just coming at it with too much if a 4e mindset but this mostly seems like a waste of time. Marking groups is difficult at best, and still provides extremely marginal value; there is very little incentive involved, and none at all if only engaged with one opponent (quite a common occurrence in my experience); and the process seems to require just as much tracking as the original.</p><p></p><p>Further, the "needless complexity" of the original isn't that deep. It's literally just...you need to still be <em>able</em> to take Reactions, even if you don't <em>consume</em> your Reaction to do it. I'm pretty sure you would want to preserve that restriction.</p><p></p><p>And if we aren't removing that restriction... I'm not sure what your edit is actually changing. Nothing about the Mark action in the 5e DMG says you can only Mark one target. Indeed, this is a significant nerf as well, as you no longer have Advantage on attacks against marked targets.</p><p></p><p>Overall, I still think this is just an ultimately wrongheaded idea from the very beginning, the original 5e "Mark" action being a stunted, malformed translation of 4e's stuff. You'd be better off just ditching it entirely and trying again from first principles.</p><p></p><p>Something like</p><p></p><p><strong>Marked</strong> (condition)</p><p>A Marked target is being actively tracked by some other combatant, harried or hindered, whether directly with physical objects, indirectly with observation and interference, or at a distance, perhaps using magic or projectile weapons. If a target is Marked by a second combatant, the first Marked condition ends.</p><p>While Marked, all attacks made the target suffer a -1 penalty unless they include the source of the Marked condition, and all saving throws for abilities used by the Marked target have their DC reduced by 1 unless the source of the Marked condition is among the targets of that ability.</p><p></p><p>Then, <em>separately,</em> give various classes and/or feats tools to make use of Marking as a feature, both ways to apply it and ways to exploit it. Presumably Battle Master Fighters should be the preeminent users thereof (probably give some nice hooks for both Fighters in general and BMs specifically), but I could see features for all classes that are primarily about physical combat (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, maybe Paladin, maybe Ranger, Rogue.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9033016, member: 6790260"] Given the idea is intended to support more tactical play, making it [I]this[/I] simple seems to contradict the goal of the thing. Maybe I'm just coming at it with too much if a 4e mindset but this mostly seems like a waste of time. Marking groups is difficult at best, and still provides extremely marginal value; there is very little incentive involved, and none at all if only engaged with one opponent (quite a common occurrence in my experience); and the process seems to require just as much tracking as the original. Further, the "needless complexity" of the original isn't that deep. It's literally just...you need to still be [I]able[/I] to take Reactions, even if you don't [I]consume[/I] your Reaction to do it. I'm pretty sure you would want to preserve that restriction. And if we aren't removing that restriction... I'm not sure what your edit is actually changing. Nothing about the Mark action in the 5e DMG says you can only Mark one target. Indeed, this is a significant nerf as well, as you no longer have Advantage on attacks against marked targets. Overall, I still think this is just an ultimately wrongheaded idea from the very beginning, the original 5e "Mark" action being a stunted, malformed translation of 4e's stuff. You'd be better off just ditching it entirely and trying again from first principles. Something like [B]Marked[/B] (condition) A Marked target is being actively tracked by some other combatant, harried or hindered, whether directly with physical objects, indirectly with observation and interference, or at a distance, perhaps using magic or projectile weapons. If a target is Marked by a second combatant, the first Marked condition ends. While Marked, all attacks made the target suffer a -1 penalty unless they include the source of the Marked condition, and all saving throws for abilities used by the Marked target have their DC reduced by 1 unless the source of the Marked condition is among the targets of that ability. Then, [I]separately,[/I] give various classes and/or feats tools to make use of Marking as a feature, both ways to apply it and ways to exploit it. Presumably Battle Master Fighters should be the preeminent users thereof (probably give some nice hooks for both Fighters in general and BMs specifically), but I could see features for all classes that are primarily about physical combat (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, maybe Paladin, maybe Ranger, Rogue.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Improved Marked Option for 5e.
Top