The defender's masochism

[Skyscraper]

If I die of a heart attack tonight, I'm dead. I get buried. If you drive to my house, shoot me, feed me to my cats, tie them up into a bag, and throw them into the river, then the end results are the same, right? I'm still not here anymore. So no appreciable differences?

Are you sure that your example is extreme enough to carry over your point?

 

[Grydan]

I actually think the defending aura is more realistic too.

Marking is a nice mechanic, but the defender aura is a fitting implementation for Fighters imo. Not sure about the balance, as I've never played with a knight.

Yeah, I think in many ways, for the fighter at least, the Defender Aura (though it could stand to have a better name), is a better mechanic than what the PHB fighter gets.

The fact that the punishment is an opportunity action (once per turn) means it's more effective at handling crowds than the immediate action (once per round) punishment of the PHB fighter.

An oddity of how the Knight's punishment is set up, however, means that while trying to just walk away from a PHB Fighter is a marked creature's worst option (assuming they don't want to sit there and attack the fighter), it's the best option for a creature adjacent to the Knight.

Walking away from a Fighter provokes an Opportunity Attack, meaning they get to attack you without using up their once per round Combat Challenge. Due to Combat Superiority, the attack is (generally) going to have a higher attack bonus than normal, and it's going to stop your movement if it hits, meaning the action was wasted. Shifting or attacking another adjacent target provokes the Combat Challenge, sure, but it's less accurate and any other creature the fighter has marked doesn't have to worry about CC this round.

Walking away from a Knight provokes an Opportunity Attack, but does not trigger their Battle Guardian Opportunity Action (it only triggers on shifts and attacks against other targets). Either way results in an attack, but the Opportunity Attack doesn't do damage on a miss, while the Battle Guardian attack does. When shifting away from a character is a riskier proposition than simply walking away from them, something seems a bit off.


If there was a way for a Knight to grab Combat Superiority without giving up Defender Aura and Battle Guardian... that would be a nice combination.

 

[Kingreaper]

Walking away from a Knight provokes an Opportunity Attack, but does not trigger their Battle Guardian Opportunity Action (it only triggers on shifts and attacks against other targets). Either way results in an attack, but the Opportunity Attack doesn't do damage on a miss, while the Battle Guardian attack does. When shifting away from a character is a riskier proposition than simply walking away from them, something seems a bit off.

Yeah, that's a bug.

Honestly, the combat superiority feature was one of my favourite parts of the fighter. Even without the ability to mark, combat superiority give you an ability to block people reasonably effectively.

I hope combat superiority is an available fighter feature in 5th, that has something like the 4e effect.

 

[Skyscraper]

So
A system used in battle whereby a group of warriors try to prevent their enemies attacking their allies by getting in the way, and threatening them.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with:
A system used in battle whereby a particular warrior tries to prevent their enemies attacking their allies by getting in the way, and threatening them.

I'm sorry, but your logic makes no sense. You say that it's never been seen in history, but it has.
You say the fighter wants to get hit, and is masochistic, but actually the fighter is defending their allies (an ALTRUISTIC, not MASOCHISTIC act)

Your views do not agree with reality.

The military formation example (taken by many posters here) is different: it relies on men physically forming a wall of protection preventing passage of enemies to the squishies. The D&D equivalent woiuld be to have a party large enough to have "defenders" stand in a line of adjacent squares so that the opponents cannot pass through that line to reach the pikemen, archers or wizards behind. The military formation obstructs passage (and arguably provides cover from missiles).

In 4E D&D, even though the opponent is adjacent to the defender and a number of his allies, that opponent will be punished if attacks someone else than the defender and, since 4E says that creatures are aware of any such situation, the opponent is consequently encouraged to attack the defender. The mechanic makes sense game-wise, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept making sense for the individual living the defender's life.

 

[Skyscraper]

Honestly, Defenders are a somewhat hacked solution to a bigger problem in turn-based combat games. In a real fight, if you try to move around a bodyguard, they move with you. You can't run a wide arc around a guard to get to your target because the bodyguard will move to intercept you, push the client out of the way, and keep himself between you. (And this is what we're talking about, right? Because bodyguarding and aggressive fighting are very different things.)

You can't really model this in a turn-based, gridded combat without messing around with multiple turn sequences in game. Defender mechanics are trying to square a circle. It only looks elegant if you take it out of context.

I favor giving some characters the ability to interrupt enemy movement or attacks. Let characters make a Move to Intercept, or a Defend Ally action out-of sequence. It's actually more flexible while requiring fewer tracking mechanics, and lets a character who wants to bodyguard or cut off advances to feel like a mobile warrior.

Can't XP you, but I feel this makes much sense to me.

 

[Skyscraper]

Fair points on all accounts. Pushing for more and more tactical verisimilitude is a sucker's game: every step you take in that direction reveals a dozen more weird disconnects.

But if you absolutely HAD to have some way to make combat more complicated without throwing in a thousand exceptions, you could split combat into 2 phases: Movement, and Attacks. Everyone rolls initiative each round (make it 1d10 to avoid absurd levels of swing). Starting from lowest to highest, you let everyone move and declare targets. Then you move down the list, from highest to lowest to resolve attacks. Pretty much how Battletech does it.

Given, you've just doubled the length of each round. So there's that.

Still can't XP you, but the move/attack breakdown is also a good idea.

 

[Skyscraper]

I have played 4E fighters.

I'm playing an eladrin knight in an essentials game on Friday nights currently.

Marking mechanics and the defender concept are so wonky because they are built on a lie.

The fighter is not the butt kicker of the group, those would be the strikers. There would be no need to shield the squishies if the fighter was actually the biggest threat in the party.

Marking is a lame way to try and convince a target that the defender is a bigger threat than the others who are actually ripping him to shreds.

What if the fighter actually was the biggest threat in a fight? (What a concept) There wouldn't be any need to mark because enemies are pretty good at identifying real threats. If they ignore the fighter, then they get slaughtered in short order.

Interesting point.

 

[Skyscraper]

You can't use the benefits provided by an ability to justify its inclusion.

Without the attack penalties and free opportunity attacks provided by the marking mechanic, is the defender a bigger threat than the striker?

If the answer is no then marking exists to justify something that isn't true.

Can't XP you, but this is also what I think.

 

[Kingreaper]

In 4E D&D, even though the opponent is adjacent to the defender and a number of his allies, that opponent will be punished if attacks someone else than the defender and, since 4E says that creatures are aware of any such situation, the opponent is consequently encouraged to attack the defender. The mechanic makes sense game-wise, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept making sense for the individual living the defender's life.

You're a Fighter. Let's say Sword-and-Shield. You have trained in the Guardian School. You know you're tougher than your allies, and better defended, and you can't bear to imagine standing there, at the end of the fight, cowering behind your shield while they're dead.


But, as I say, you're trained in the Guardian School, Mamorujutsu, a martial art that uses a blade to defend your allies.

You want the enemy dead, or at least not fighting anymore. So, you go up to one of them, a sneaky looking bugger with a rapier, and you "mark" him: you watch him, paying attention to his every movement.
The moment he takes his eyes off you, BAM! you strike at his exposed flank.
He turns back to you, and you clash swords. He's learnt his lesson now, he never turns away from you.

You're not worried about your own safety, you'll be fine. You've got your armour, your sword, your shield. You can take a few hits.

But William the Wizard? He's a good guy, really, his spells really help in a fight, you love him to bits. Without him, you'd eventually be over-run by sheer numbers.
But he's a nerd, with a book, wearing robes. If this bugger got to him he'd only last a few seconds.

So you stand here, and you guard him while he prepares his spells, and blasts through the enemies.

But then, Robby the Rogue gets caught off guard by a massive brute of a man, slammed down to the ground, he's nearly down for good.

And the sneaky bugger you've been fighting looks at you, grins, and tries to dodge deftly past you. If he gets to Robby there won't be enough left of the poor boy for Clara to pick him back up. You act instantly, without any conscious thought, and your blade digs into the shoulder of the sneaky bugger.
He stops himself before plowing himself full into the blade, but only just. He's not going to get to Robby.

He turns, enraged, and strikes at you again. This time your shield is just out of place, and his blade hits flesh.
That's the cost of defending your friends.

But you're tough, you can take it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In 4E D&D, even though the opponent is adjacent to the defender and a number of his allies, that opponent will be punished if attacks someone else than the defender and, since 4E says that creatures are aware of any such situation, the opponent is consequently encouraged to attack the defender. The mechanic makes sense game-wise, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept making sense for the individual living the defender's life.

If they wanted a more strict simulation with marking, what it would actually do is give you a -2 to do anything that did not involve attacking the defender or going into full defense mode. Either of those latter two would be "paying attention to the fighter." It is simply that most people don't try skill checks when a fighter is in their grill, and full defense is already covered by the technical language. I'm sure someone can come up with other niche cases that fit the skill check parameters.

And arguably, then, anyone should be able to do this, but defenders would do it far better. After all, it is the immediate threat of being covered by an attack backed by skill. A little bit of training goes a long way when people stop paying full attention. (An 11 year old female fencer, slight, about 4 foot, 80 lbs, with 3 years of training--not much of threat. Give them a real rapier and ignore them for a second when they know you otherwise mean business, the fact that they can reliably put a sharp point within 1 inch of their target, 54 inches away from their body, makes them seriously more dangerous than, say, most teenage male athletes.)

This is part of why I would prefer marking be changed to have less direct interrupts, but be a combination of imposing penalties on the target--regardless of its actions--backed up by serious attacks. For example, get marked, take a -2 to all attacks, defense, or d20 rolls of any kind--against the marker or anyone else. Then the fighters and other melee trained combatants make that even steeper, perhaps -4. Then give the fighter abilities that effectively allow him to stay with his mark without interrupts, preferably while imposing some movement penalties too. Tack on appropriate standard attacks, perhaps with (good) options to trade accuracy for damage, and the orc that tries to run past the fighter to hit the wizard is in a world of hurt.

He may manage to get to the wizard (if enough movement left) and try that shot at -4, but the fighter is now ready on his action to pop the orc with that -4 AC, and probably flanking with the wizard to boot. Then if there is anyhing left, the wizard also gets that -4 AC on the target. It's the kind of thing that would be left to suicidal or berzerk charges.

Just because marks aren't absolutely perfect on every class, in every particular, doesn't mean the whole concept should be thrown out.