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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Marks "Attack that does not include you..."
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="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5590992" data-attributes="member: 71571"><p>Abstracted further, it means the marker is doing something that makes it harder to not attack him. </p><p></p><p>The punishment is separate to marking. That represents the ability to react to an attack that isn't him, and doesn't always represent a physical reaction. A paladin doesn't do -anything- to react, he simply has a prayer placed on the target.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course he must, he has an ability that says he can retaliate. It's no different than if the monster spent an action point, the defender can still react to that, regardless of how other actions were spent. He just can't use that reaction more than once per round... that 'six second period' encapsulates the -round-, not the -turn-.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not really relevent to a rules argument, but that's fine, different tables do different things, and this isn't a huge deal worth raising an objection over at a table. Most players with things like this have the decency to let the DM use his rule 0 as he sees fit. That doesn't indicate that something is the RAW. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep. The defender doesn't want a solo focusfiring on him, he shouldn't mark a solo. It's similar to how if you don't want five enemies all wailing on you, don't mark all five enemies.</p><p></p><p>This decision, of course, will change from round to round.</p><p></p><p>At the end of the day, I prefer multi-attacks being treated distinctly. The reasoning is very simple... if something mechanically inclines defenders to be a more capable combatant against certain solos, that means the player has a moment to shine. It's no different than including a minionwavescramble for sorcerers to play with and shine in... or a fight where leaders have to leverage their powers to swing a battle from defeat to victory... or a fight where strikers get to go out and assassinate hard targets other characters can't reach.</p><p></p><p>The game is better for having mechanical advantages for certain characters at certain times.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DracoSuave, post: 5590992, member: 71571"] Abstracted further, it means the marker is doing something that makes it harder to not attack him. The punishment is separate to marking. That represents the ability to react to an attack that isn't him, and doesn't always represent a physical reaction. A paladin doesn't do -anything- to react, he simply has a prayer placed on the target. Of course he must, he has an ability that says he can retaliate. It's no different than if the monster spent an action point, the defender can still react to that, regardless of how other actions were spent. He just can't use that reaction more than once per round... that 'six second period' encapsulates the -round-, not the -turn-. Not really relevent to a rules argument, but that's fine, different tables do different things, and this isn't a huge deal worth raising an objection over at a table. Most players with things like this have the decency to let the DM use his rule 0 as he sees fit. That doesn't indicate that something is the RAW. Yep. The defender doesn't want a solo focusfiring on him, he shouldn't mark a solo. It's similar to how if you don't want five enemies all wailing on you, don't mark all five enemies. This decision, of course, will change from round to round. At the end of the day, I prefer multi-attacks being treated distinctly. The reasoning is very simple... if something mechanically inclines defenders to be a more capable combatant against certain solos, that means the player has a moment to shine. It's no different than including a minionwavescramble for sorcerers to play with and shine in... or a fight where leaders have to leverage their powers to swing a battle from defeat to victory... or a fight where strikers get to go out and assassinate hard targets other characters can't reach. The game is better for having mechanical advantages for certain characters at certain times. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Marks "Attack that does not include you..."
Top