The defender's masochism

[Bluenose]

If you had a combat system that resolved actions by the half-second, the fighter can do that without needing a marking mechanic. However, that adds a host of other challenges and makes combats really weird.

GURPS functions "perfectly well" with 1-second combat rounds. It doesn't seem to give weird results, either, when compared to many other games.

I personally don't like a character having mechanics to defend. I would instead like the general rules to low anyone to defend.

Get rid of marking, defender auras, and shifting, then when the enemy is next to you it can't get away without getting an AoO and anyone who wants to can defend.

So, encourage highly static fights and make sure that people aren't distracted in any way by being attacked while trying to do something. Not that I disagree with the idea of anyone being able to defend, but what that means is at least as important.

 

[billd91]

Except that, in those cases you describe, you're being less effective than if you just went and hit people. Less effective at defending your ally than if you weren't trying to defend them.

That's a bit rubbish really.

But I could have used that held action to do anything else including making an attack on anybody trying to get around me and getting within 10 feet of the guy I was protecting. I've got a fair amount of flexibility. Add in feats from PF that allow me to immobilize the opponent (Stand Still) or get in the way (Bodyguard, In Harm's Way) and I don't need a marking mechanic that creates weird metagame effects (like my mark being removed because another fighter marked the same target or being able to mark something 50 feet away even if it's adjacent to and mauling the target I'm trying to protect).
EDIT: Even better, those become positive choices for me to make. Do I want to be that kind of fighter? Or do I want to fulfill some other role the party needs filled?

I don't see a problem with marking indicating that, as a character with a marking ability, I'm focusing attention on a particular opponent. But I don't see how it should involve imposing a penalty on the marked target's own actions. Give up an Opportunity Attack (if I have one to take)? Sure (note: isn't that better than what marking actually gives the fighter now? It would certainly synergize with Combat Superiority better than the free attack you get now.). Nor do I see how it should be removed because someone else is doing the same thing I'm doing - marking the same target.

There's too much with 4e's implementation of marking that tells me it was based on a germ of a decent idea but made kind of half-assed because too many implications were sacrificed, probably on the altar of game balance.

 

[Herschel]

I don't think I agree with that assumption. Everyone on that battlefield is there to kill the opponents. Period. The fighter is not a do-gooder that wishes to avoid bloodshed and is simply there to protect his friends. (Why call him a "figther" otherwise?)

What you're failing to understand is the Defender is the guy to defend his friends because he has better defenses and more HP. It's "If you attack my friends there will be consequences" but if they chose to go after you there's also the issue of being harder to hit and harder to significantly damage. Defenders create catch-22s for team monster. They can't cover the whole field, but they can lock down an area/portion of team monster.

There is an obvious tactical reason that relates to weapon reach why pikemen are installed behind shieldmen/swordmen in mass battles where the military unit can dispose its troops shoulder-to-shoulder. This has nothing to do with marking or other defender abilities that suggest to enemies to avoid attacking allies (and, my contention: to consequently attack the defender, although I know you all seem to disagree with this cause-consequence line of thought, that I see every time I play the game.)

For what "Real world" battles are worth, there's always been defenders. The guys protecting the communications techs, the soldiers storming the breach, etc. all are there to draw attacks.

 

[billd91]

I'm of the opposite opinion. If you want to have a class system, it is way better to make a lot of classes, each of which has clear central mechanics. A system of a small number of loosely defined classes that give you options rather than central mechanics loses all of the strengths of the class system...

From my point of view, it enhances the class system because the class takes on more meaning than a bunch of mechanical options. But I've mentioned that in another thread around here about what classes mean to me.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This thread has resulted in so many 'edition war' reports that I'm closing it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Careful billd91, or I'll edit your post to say something... else...