Taunts & Marks vs. Challenges

[Kynn]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. But to be honest, I don't think I've ever made a character without consideration to how it'll fit in the party. But then I know I'm a pretty party-centric player.

Me too. I've particularly liked 4e's focus on not just making up a character, but making up a character who fits into a group in a specific way.

But not everyone seems to want that. Which is a shame, but seems to be true -- they want to consider their characters as solo heroes rather than part of a team.

 

[fuindordm]

I thought marks were an elegant solution to the problem of fighters not being able to hold a line. I never played with the essentials fighter, but its aura sounded like a good alternative.

In 3.x there were just too many ways of avoiding AoOs. Tumbling and mobility for dextrous enemies, or just running a half-circle outside the fighter's reach for anyone else. And enemies wanted to take out the soft targets first, because they were also the targets doing the most damage (spells). So the only tactically sound choice was usually to focus on the spellcasters, then mop up the fighters.

Now, a single fighter will never be able to control much of an open battlefield. But penalizing adjacent opponents who ignore the fighter is a pretty effective mechanic, and it never seemed contrived to me. The -2 penalty is not excessive, but it's definitely enough to make the DM/NPC reconsider their cost/benefit analysis.

And for the record, I liked the Knight class too. I don't think I'd use its challenge feature on PCs, but I think it's fine model for a PC class on NPCs.

 

[BobTheNob]

Are you sure you're playing D&D? I'm not accusing you of doing it wrong, but perhaps you've missing the Fighter whit their generally higher armor who often took the brunt of the battle. Perhaps you didn't notice the wizard with the high-damage Fireball. Or could you simply have overlooked those Cure Wounds the Cleric tosses out?

If you want "not roles", no concepts of certain battlefield positions, then I'm going to wager you're a little late to the party, roles have been around since the beginning, whether they were codified with certain features or not.

Yes, Im pretty sure I am. In fact, Im pretty sure I have for the past 30 years.

You know, it is possible for people to play the game in different ways. I found your response more than little offensive and derogatory there.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, Im pretty sure I am. In fact, Im pretty sure I have for the past 30 years.

You know, it is possible for people to play the game in different ways. I found your response more than little offensive and derogatory there.

Roles don't prevent you from playing the game in different ways, they don't prevent you from playing whatever you want regardless of what the party may need to be well-rounded.

And it was harmless ribbing.

 

[BobTheNob]

Roles don't prevent you from playing the game in different ways, they don't prevent you from playing whatever you want regardless of what the party may need to be well-rounded.

And it was harmless ribbing.

Then I will choose to take it as such.

I dont mind marks per-sae or "tanking mechanics" as such. Frankly, even you you were to use a "role-less" game (as I prefer) the fighter does stand out as the guy who can take the most and therefore the one who should put himself forward as a target.

The thing is I know my players. The guys who like playing fighters dont like playing tanks. In fact, when we started playing 4e, it wasnt the fighter players that played the tanks, it was actually the guy who traditionally played the rogue!

The guys who played fighter actually preferred to be fighters as damage dealers (and this was well before essentials Slayer came out). They arent power players, so hitting the boards to up fighter damage was never going to happen.

I guess I would say, sure, go for some tanking mechanic, but I wont buy into the debate as to which one. As a DM, the thing I want for my group is the option to not be tied to a tanking role as a fighter, and offer alternate options.

Yes. Roles have been there by proxy since the beggining, but within our group only me and one other even think like that. The others dont, and for their sakes, I would just prefer for the fighter to be what they want it to be, a role-less battlefield titan.

 

[Sunseeker]

Sure, and it's been a long-running problem to pull Fighters out of their spot as "tanks" or whatever, it wasn't until late 3.5 that we got the Tome of Battle and got Fighter-like classes that were clearly intended to deal damage. I play my Paladin's the same way, I love having them as up-front damage dealers instead of the wimpy backup healers or second-rate tanks. I think even with defender mechanics 4e did a good job of making paladin's much more into my preferred "role".

I would love for the fighter to be able to be a more up-front damage dealer than the normal tanky sport they put him in.

 

[Kynn]

Yes. Roles have been there by proxy since the beggining, but within our group only me and one other even think like that. The others dont, and for their sakes, I would just prefer for the fighter to be what they want it to be, a role-less battlefield titan.

Isn't "battlefield titan" just a role, though?

 

[BobTheNob]

Isn't "battlefield titan" just a role, though?

Touche

 

[Kynn]

Touche

I'm not just trying to score points here for rhetoric, mind you -- I think that "battlefield titan" is indeed an expression of a desire for characters to fit a given role.

(In 4e terms, we'd probably call it a striker. In WoW terms, we'd call it DPS.)

Your players DO have an expectation of their characters being able to play certain roles in combat. That's why I wonder if a lot of this is just because people want to pretend that if we don't talk about roles directly, they don't exist.

 

[BobTheNob]

I'm not just trying to score points here for rhetoric, mind you -- I think that "battlefield titan" is indeed an expression of a desire for characters to fit a given role.

(In 4e terms, we'd probably call it a striker. In WoW terms, we'd call it DPS.)

Your players DO have an expectation of their characters being able to play certain roles in combat. That's why I wonder if a lot of this is just because people want to pretend that if we don't talk about roles directly, they don't exist.

You make it sound like we are emu's hiding our heads in the sand.

Your right. The fact that they aren't formal doesn't mean they don't exist. They do exist, by proxy they always have.

I just think of my oh-so-casual group. In the end did formalization of roles enhance the game for them? No, not really. Each of them chose class because of what they wanted them to be, then I informed them of how the class worked mechanically and how formal roles worked...best reaction I got? "Oh" (with shrugged shoulders).

My players didnt want to play a role, they wanted to play an image, a perception of an in world persona. Nothing more.

But this thread is about tanking mechanics. I ONLY point this out to say "Whichever mechanic proves the consensus, leave space for people who dont want to play fighters as tanks". Lets not fall back into fighter must be tank mentality, as there do exist people who just dont want it.