Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

[GreyICE]

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.

Can you name a few? How long do their combats typically take? Are they gritty 'easy to die' systems or are they 'hp and multiple-round combat' systems?

I've literally never seen it done well.

 

[satori01]

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.

Are you truly this big of an ass, or do you play an ass just on TV and this board?

Seriously, I am curious if there is a piece of information(like you have Aspergers), that would put the tone of your comments into the appropriate context.

Most people play games to have fun. Most people go to forums for games that they play to further enhance said fun. I do not think that for most people reading someone clearly mocking another poster is a fun enhancer.
Certainly Eric's Grandma, never used to condone this.

This will be my last post in this vein.

 

[GreyICE]

How funny. We think the same.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A simple:

"if an adjacent enemy attacks an ally, you get an opportunity attack against him. If you hit, he gets a -2 penalt to attack your ally"

The problem would have been, that more than one defender could defend at once... and here I ask: why not? If two fighters attack a monster, why shouldn´t they make it very hard for the monster?

And in 4e terms: it would just turn a couple of two defenders in a couple of strikers! And this would have been great.

 

[Nimblegrund]

I have always felt that marks were contrived, a concept that might work well for raids in MMO games, but out of place in a RPG where we role play things.

Now I am all for giving the fighter classes tools to control the battlefield. What if we gave fighters more attacks of opportunity? What if they could bring opponents nearby them to a halt so they couldn't get around them, and had to deal with the fighter? Or even an ability that says, "ok, see that guy in front of me? if he tries to move I am going to get another swing at him!"

It's not like the marking mechanic is the only possible solution here.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

that is more or less the defender aura mechanic. Which in my opinion is much more appropriate for the martial defenders.

 

[Croesus]

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

Not quite true. In earlier versions (pre-3E), facing affected whether or not a character received their shield bonus to AC. And in 1E, a rogue could backstab if attacking from directly behind his target.

There have been a number of attempts to mimic real world melee combat, with varying degrees of success. Personally, I hope 5E has a fairly rules-lite base, with most of the mechanics mentioned in this thread presented as options. Nothing wrong with one group using marks and auras, another using attacks of opportunity, another ignoring this altogether.

 

[Endur]

One other aspect of this.

In AD&D, the ten foot corridor (wide enough for two PCs) was pretty much the standard for dungeon exploration.

So there were many, many fights (probably over 50% of fights) where the two fighters in front did the melee, and the casters and archers (and maybe a spear wielder) were in the rear ranks.

With the minis-battle maps and the emphasis on wide open activity, the ten foot corridor is no longer as popular.

Today it is rare to have a combat where only two members of the party are in melee, and they block the monsters from being able to attack the party.

Marking and other tank control abilities (auras, etc.) are an attempt to get that capabiliity back without using a 10' corridor.

 

[Minigiant]

The main issue is that D&D actions happen separately and with no changes when declare. Yes, characters can ready actions but they are limited to a single contingency.

In a real combat, an action can be changed to suit the battlefield in an instant. The enemy tries to pass you on your right, you can shift to the right and intercept. If they are far away due to space, you can break from what you are doing and chase the enemy with a sprint.

But in D&D, there is no way to engage an enemy while having 3 or 4 contingencies in place. There are only so many actions you can do when it is not your turn and these actions typically nerf your effectiveness on your turn or bog down the game.

A better readying system would be nice. Being able to say "I charge the orc with my axe but if the goblin tries to slip pass me, I push off the orc and chase after him" would be great.

 

[mcintma]

Marking and its ilk (warlock curse, etc.) is among the mechanics I disliked the most about 4e. Every time I played 4e (admittedly only ~6 sessions, which included pro DMs at Gen Con) I found it annoying and it just took me out of the game. All these plastic icons moving back and forth every round as seemingly everything is marking everything else, often for some fiddly -1 here or there.

If these things are in 5e, please let it be an optional module.