Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

Endur

Visitor
As a long-time tank, I despise taunts, marks, etc. I'd much rather have a high damage attack than a high threat attack.

That said, I like the challenge concept. If I damage an opponent, and nobody else damages the opponent, it makes sense that the opponent would try to damage me back.

edit:
Taunts are a World of Warcraft mechanic for insuring that a monster will attack a tank if the monster would rather attack another party member.
Mark is a D&D 4e rule for fighters (and some other classes) that insures that a monster that has been attacked by a fighter will attack the fighter instead of other party members.
Challenge was a D&D 3e PHB2 mechanic that Knights had to insure that a monster might in some circumstances attack the knight in preference to other party members. Above I'm not really referring to the specific Knight ability, rather the generic idea of a 1 on 1 challenge (or possibly 1 to many), where a single PC holds off an army (or Gandalf vs. the Balrog).
 
Last edited:

Kynn

Adventurer
As a long-time tank, I despise taunts, marks, etc. I'd much rather have a high damage attack than a high threat attack.

That said, I like the challenge concept. If I damage an opponent, and nobody else damages the opponent, it makes sense that the opponent would try to damage me back.
Cool, hope you get what you want in a module.
 

GreyICE

Visitor
A tank with high damage and no control is called a striker.

The mark mechanic is very solid, and if they replace it with something just as good.
 
I have no problem with there being a spell or special magical ability that compels enemies to fight the user.

I have no problem with characters openly challenging enemies to duels.

I have no problem with enemies choosing to fight the most damaging enemy.

But I even as a 4e fan, I never liked non-magical marks that much.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
I really enjoyed marking targets. In order for a tank to tank, they really do need some kind of persistent way to grab a target's attention. Magic or non-magic, this kind of system I think is very useful, fun and necessary to tanking.
 

Savage Wombat

Adventurer
The fact that a "tank" needs a power to do his job does not necessitate that D&D requires such a power, or a "tank" in the first place. Please note the 3x+1 threads about removing prescribed roles from D&D.

That said, I'm OK with the introduction of more specific defender mechanics. I'm just concerned that they may work against the bog-simplicity WotC seems to be trying for in core.
 

GreyICE

Visitor
The essentials defender had some bog simple auras that took the place of marks, and were quite adequate for the job. Hell, it's possible that the single best defender build right now is an essentials build.

That being said, the non-magical marks (all... one of them) always made sense to me. The Fighter marked his enemies for one round by... making a melee attack against them. Anything he attacked with a melee attack was marked, for one round.

What does that represent? It's really hard to get away from the big guy who is trying to separate your limbs from your body. Pay attention to him! He is big and angry and wants to cut you!

(most of the rest of the marks were mystical. Paladins were literally a divine punishment, Warden's allowed the Warden to have plants just grab the person and haul them around, Swordmage marks were literally mystical homing beacons, etc.)
 

Mattachine

Visitor
Without a specific rule for making enemies attack, or for providing penalties for not attacking, we have the situation in earlier editions, and the beginning of 3e: enemies just go around the "tanks".
 

Croesus

Adventurer
Without a specific rule for making enemies attack, or for providing penalties for not attacking, we have the situation in earlier editions, and the beginning of 3e: enemies just go around the "tanks".
I'm not sure I see the problem.

If we were talking about a boardgame or minis game, where your opponent (the other player) always tries to maximize the moves of his forces, then specific rules for freezing certain units makes sense.

But in a roleplaying game, I expect the GM to play the opponents, whether creatures or npc's, appropriately. Most of the time this seems to end up with the various fighter types hacking on each other, but a smart opponent will sometimes do something else, just as the player characters would. And various creatures will have their own motivations that will guide their actions. All of that lends verisimilitude or whatever to the game.
 

GreyICE

Visitor
I'm not sure I see the problem.

If we were talking about a boardgame or minis game, where your opponent (the other player) always tries to maximize the moves of his forces, then specific rules for freezing certain units makes sense.

But in a roleplaying game, I expect the GM to play the opponents, whether creatures or npc's, appropriately. Most of the time this seems to end up with the various fighter types hacking on each other, but a smart opponent will sometimes do something else, just as the player characters would. And various creatures will have their own motivations that will guide their actions. All of that lends verisimilitude or whatever to the game.
And again this comes back to what you want out of a system.

There is no internal consistency in a system where there is no penalty for walking around the fighter, but it is assumed that monsters don't do it anyway. Internally inconsistent systems are generally bad. You're saying 'well, there's no particular reason that everyone in your world doesn't do this, but... don't let them do it anyway.'

Now in the real world, why did warriors in combat not walk around each other and go cut up the archers? Well, if they just walked around another guy with a sword and went after an archer, they guy with the sword they were walking around would probably cut them up real good. He'd probably also try to protect the archers, keep the enemy from reaching them, make it harder to wound them.

The mark system and defensive auras were two good solutions to make a mechanical representation of what happens when you try to ignore the big guy with the sword.
 

Savage Wombat

Adventurer
The mark system and defensive auras were two good solutions to make a mechanical representation of what happens when you try to ignore the big guy with the sword.
Attacks of Opportunity do the same thing. If you try to walk around the fighter, he hits you.

The problem is whether the players like the mechanism, and feel it's effective.
 

GreyICE

Visitor
Attacks of Opportunity do the same thing. If you try to walk around the fighter, he hits you.

The problem is whether the players like the mechanism, and feel it's effective.
Sure. But attacks of opportunity are not unique to fighters, and also kill the fighter's ability to defend, say, the rogue. The rogue is up close and personal, so there's no attacks of opportunity occurring. Basically, in real world terms, despite the fact the fighter is literally swinging his sword at the person, in his face, weapon coming at him, there is no penalty for the person turning around and taking a swing at the rogue.

That seems wrong.

Whether people like the system personal opinion, but as far as it being effective, the mark system was very effective at letting the fighter defend his party members.
 
Now in the real world, why did warriors in combat not walk around each other and go cut up the archers? Well, if they just walked around another guy with a sword and went after an archer, they guy with the sword they were walking around would probably cut them up real good.
Basically, in real world terms, despite the fact the fighter is literally swinging his sword at the person, in his face, weapon coming at him, there is no penalty for the person turning around and taking a swing at the rogue.
So, logically, wouldn't basically all melee warriors be defenders? I mean, if you turn your back on them to attack someone else, wouldn't they "cut them up real good"? As always, play what you like :)
 

GreyICE

Visitor
So, logically, wouldn't basically all melee warriors be defenders? I mean, if you turn your back on them to attack someone else, wouldn't they "cut them up real good"? As always, play what you like :)
Well, if we take, for instance, the Rogue, I've always figured that they don't properly engage a target. They weave around the target, looking for an opening, and strike a single quick blow. Rangers skirmish with the target, darting in and out for strikes. Fighters are the ones actively in your face, able to get in close with their target and keep them occupied.

Suggestion: Turn-based initiative is the problem.
Well yeah, but what's a good solution.

P.S. I appreciate how people feel a need to post to inform us that they know very little. If I may offer a suggestion to those people, there's a game called Dungeons and Dragons, that allows you to simulate fantasy combat on the tabletop, while role-playing as characters in that world. It's really cool and a lot of fun. I suggest you take the time to try it at some point.

PPS that kind of comment is an unwarranted insult and has awarded you an infraction. Don't snipe at other people - Plane Sailing, ENworld Admin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, if we take, for instance, the Rogue, I've always figured that they don't properly engage a target. They weave around the target, looking for an opening, and strike a single quick blow. Rangers skirmish with the target, darting in and out for strikes. Fighters are the ones actively in your face, able to get in close with their target and keep them occupied.
I don't know. I really wouldn't want to turn my back on a rogue. Or, as you said, really any guy with a sword. I don't see the big difference, as long as he's up close and got a pointy with my name on it. As always, play what you like :)
 

GreyICE

Visitor
I think we're discussing what mechanics we want in 5E and what possibilities there are, not what edition we currently like to play.

Although I note that before 4E there was no punishment at all for turning your back on any character.
 

LostSoul

Visitor
Well yeah, but what's a good solution.
Actions that take place at the same time. e.g. I try to move around the tank to hit the glass cannon, while the tank tries to stop me. There are many RPGs that do this.

That said, since I was suggesting that the problem was turn-based initiative, I'm open to arguments that it's not the problem.
 

Advertisement

Top