keterys
First Post
So, it appears that marks are a particular turnoff for a number of people. Particularly when monsters do it. To be clear, I'm talking actual marks and the marked condition - hunter's quarry and warlock's curse can have its own discussion
So I'm kinda hoping ya'll would brainstorm a bit with me on the pros and cons of marks and ways to replace them. I don't necessarily plan to do so myself, but I'd like to have a reasonable offering for a replacement - for PCs and monsters.
I believe most objections to marks fall into two camps:
1) These are a pain to track
2) This penalty is unrealistic / stupid / annoying
The primary benefit to marking is that it allows a 'tanking' aspect, where a target is penalized for ignoring a particular soldier or defender. The secondary benefit is that it stops multiple soldiers / defenders from creating a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" situation.
While it seems pretty viable to remove the 'marked' condition by replacing it with some other benefit (for example, what if paladins had an immediate interrupt to block X damage to an ally within 5 squares instead of dealing X damage, and perhaps added Y damage to attacks against an enemy that hit one of its allies since the paladin's last turn) - still lets it do its job of defending. The problem is that secondary issue of what happens if you have two paladins...
For monsters, it's possible to just change marks into a brief penalty to attacks, free attacks (like a fighter), and a host of slow/immobilize/knockdown type effects... but removing the choice of movement is bad as it makes combat more stagnant and you hit the 'What if there's 3 soldiers' problem again. I'd definitely like a good option for 'There's a penalty for not attacking this guy, but it may be worth it'.
Anyhow, this is probably already in TLDR territory... but I would ask that you refrain from bringing up inherent objections to the defending concept that marking is trying to enable from a "Don't make D&D into an MMO" angle or similar thread. I just want to discuss alternate systems to obtain a similar result or other methods to make it easier
So I'm kinda hoping ya'll would brainstorm a bit with me on the pros and cons of marks and ways to replace them. I don't necessarily plan to do so myself, but I'd like to have a reasonable offering for a replacement - for PCs and monsters.
I believe most objections to marks fall into two camps:
1) These are a pain to track
2) This penalty is unrealistic / stupid / annoying
The primary benefit to marking is that it allows a 'tanking' aspect, where a target is penalized for ignoring a particular soldier or defender. The secondary benefit is that it stops multiple soldiers / defenders from creating a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't" situation.
While it seems pretty viable to remove the 'marked' condition by replacing it with some other benefit (for example, what if paladins had an immediate interrupt to block X damage to an ally within 5 squares instead of dealing X damage, and perhaps added Y damage to attacks against an enemy that hit one of its allies since the paladin's last turn) - still lets it do its job of defending. The problem is that secondary issue of what happens if you have two paladins...
For monsters, it's possible to just change marks into a brief penalty to attacks, free attacks (like a fighter), and a host of slow/immobilize/knockdown type effects... but removing the choice of movement is bad as it makes combat more stagnant and you hit the 'What if there's 3 soldiers' problem again. I'd definitely like a good option for 'There's a penalty for not attacking this guy, but it may be worth it'.
Anyhow, this is probably already in TLDR territory... but I would ask that you refrain from bringing up inherent objections to the defending concept that marking is trying to enable from a "Don't make D&D into an MMO" angle or similar thread. I just want to discuss alternate systems to obtain a similar result or other methods to make it easier