Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Fighter: Samurai, Sharpshooter, Arcane Archer & Knight

I'm getting, like, unhealthy amounts of mad, clicking on that broken link.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Marking is replacing some other power the Knight should have received.

I still can't figure out what Marking has to do with the concept of the Knight, but that's another issue.

As someone that's used marking extensively in tabletop, marking is an abstract mechanic that can represent a lot of different things based off what it actually simulates- case in point in 4e, the swordmage could very easily mass mark a huge swath of the battlefield at high levels- but since their mark and mark punishment feature was flavored as a magical aegis that made sense.

At it's most basic level, marking is kind of like guarding folks in basketball- it's threatening their freedom of attack, it might bother them a little (the classic -2 mark penalty applied) or it might involve some greater punishment. But it's basically used to hinder the enemy from freely attacking your allies, by getting all up in their face and inside their head. It also helps solidify the defensive role in DND, because there's a penalty associated with ignoring the defensive character.

A knight, in many interpretations, is a warrior in armor whom protects others "knight in shining armor" so it makes sense that they would have the skills to go toe to toe with something and interfere with it's attempts to ignore them and go after squishier allies, the ability says "on my honor as a knight, I will protect you" and then lets you actually follow up mechanically. It feels amazing when it works and you can essentially force the monsters into interesting tactical choices that involve "who do I target?" beyond simple fiat.

 

[Xeviat]

Why is marking a hard concept to get, especially because you have to make an attack on someone to mark them. You are attacking them in such a way that they are encouraged to focus on you. It could be a flurry of attacks against their weapon to keep them from using it on someone else, or a feint that will turn into an attack if they direct their attention away. Nothing in marking says that they have to attack you, it's not some mystical compulsion.

In a 2 on 1 fight, one person can very much hold the focus of the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Istbor]

Why is marking a hard concept to get, especially because you have to make an attack on someone to mark them. You are attacking them in such a way that they are encouraged to focus on you. It could be a flurry of attacks against their weapon to keep them from using it on someone else, or a feint that will turn into an attack if they direct their attention away. Nothing in marking says that they have to attack you, it's not some mystical compulsion.

In a 2 on 1 fight, one person can very much hold the focus of the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are several answers to this question.

One could be that it introduces a type of game play someone does not want in their D&D game. The typical thing I see here is that it makes people feel as though a Video game concept and mechanic is invading their D&D.

Another is that because it is an abstract concept or a simplification for what the character is actually doing, that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Also hindering those who like to simulate real life more than others.

Yet another group of people feel that it is a near magical feature that simply doesn't belong in the figher's toolkit Whether it again breaks some sort of 4th wall or they don't believe 'mundane' characters should have such abilities.

And I guess one more could be that it reminds them of an edition that they disliked. And it maybe goes beyond rationality, like a phobia.

Maybe it isn't even people not 'getting' the concept, but just don't want it. They don't want it so much that they will stomp on anyone else's chance at it. Feeling threatened that the concept of a Knight is now forever tainted or stolen away.

I can understand some of that stuff. I just don't feel the same way. Let everyone get something they enjoy. People upset simply because they don't like it and don't want it for anyone, I hope they eat crow.

 

[MechaPilot]

There are several answers to this question.

One could be that it introduces a type of game play someone does not want in their D&D game. The typical thing I see here is that it makes people feel as though a Video game concept and mechanic is invading their D&D.

Another is that because it is an abstract concept or a simplification for what the character is actually doing, that it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Also hindering those who like to simulate real life more than others.

Yet another group of people feel that it is a near magical feature that simply doesn't belong in the figher's toolkit Whether it again breaks some sort of 4th wall or they don't believe 'mundane' characters should have such abilities.

And I guess one more could be that it reminds them of an edition that they disliked. And it maybe goes beyond rationality, like a phobia.

Maybe it isn't even people not 'getting' the concept, but just don't want it. They don't want it so much that they will stomp on anyone else's chance at it. Feeling threatened that the concept of a Knight is now forever tainted or stolen away.

I can understand some of that stuff. I just don't feel the same way. Let everyone get something they enjoy. People upset simply because they don't like it and don't want it for anyone, I hope they eat crow.

Although I think you did a good job of describing different reasons why some people may object to marking, I have to disagree with the part I bolded above. If abstract concepts ruin a person's suspension of disbelief, then that suspension is already ruined before marking comes along. Hit Points and Armor Class, which do a tremendous amount of the heavy-lifting in D&D's combat system are both abstract concepts.

 

[Istbor]

Although I think you did a good job of describing different reasons why some people may object to marking, I have to disagree with the part I bolded above. If abstract concepts ruin a person's suspension of disbelief, then that suspension is already ruined before marking comes along. Hit Points and Armor Class, which do a tremendous amount of the heavy-lifting in D&D's combat system are both abstract concepts.

Oh yeah I totally agree. I am not one of those myself, and while I can understand the sentiment, I can't square with the process of thought.

I can see maybe that HP is 100% meat attempting to reconcile HP but for AC, I am at a loss. I mean, does every miss mean that it glanced off armor or smacked a shield? Or that it was a complete whiff? I feel like if I think about it long enough I could think of something, but I am lazy, and I would never use that sort of thing anyway.

Plus, you are playing in a world with magic and elves. It is odd to me that your disbelief comes in when someone uses a short-hand for taunting and enemy or getting in its face and making yourself a more present threat.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Oh yeah I totally agree. I am not one of those myself, and while I can understand the sentiment, I can't square with the process of thought.

I can see maybe that HP is 100% meat attempting to reconcile HP but for AC, I am at a loss. I mean, does every miss mean that it glanced off armor or smacked a shield? Or that it was a complete whiff? I feel like if I think about it long enough I could think of something, but I am lazy, and I would never use that sort of thing anyway.

Plus, you are playing in a world with magic and elves. It is odd to me that your disbelief comes in when someone uses a short-hand for taunting and enemy or getting in its face and making yourself a more present threat.

One option, though I prefer abstracted AC, would be to work out what portion of your AC comes from your armor vs. base (+dex for lighter armors) then describe based off whether it was a hit you could have avoided with base (it missed/ you dodged) or if you needed the armor (your armor absorbed it) or if you needed the shield (you blocked it)

 

[MechaPilot]

One option, though I prefer abstracted AC, would be to work out what portion of your AC comes from your armor vs. base (+dex for lighter armors) then describe based off whether it was a hit you could have avoided with base (it missed/ you dodged) or if you needed the armor (your armor absorbed it) or if you needed the shield (you blocked it)

That's definitely a valid method of determining how to describe a missed attack roll. I think 3e even encouraged that method, whether intentionally or not, because it included the AC vs touch attacks mechanic.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yup, i've heard about it in other places, it seems like a lot of trouble to formalize though- I try to focus on what works for the character. An agile character probably dodges, a juggernaut character shakes it off, characters whom are in between do a mix, i've noticed that i do tend to naturally base it off the attack roll too, a low roll miss is painted as the enemies own fault, a mid to high roll miss is painted as being because of the PC's competence.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Although I think you did a good job of describing different reasons why some people may object to marking, I have to disagree with the part I bolded above. If abstract concepts ruin a person's suspension of disbelief, then that suspension is already ruined before marking comes along. Hit Points and Armor Class, which do a tremendous amount of the heavy-lifting in D&D's combat system are both abstract concepts.

There are different levels of abstract and how jarring the abstraction is.

AC and hitpoints are an abstraction of a combination "did you hit" and "did it die". Both of those are important things to know, and both are hard to represent. AC and hit points do a decent enough job of emulating what they're supposed to emulate: dragged out slug fests with an element of luck, but not too much luck. Unsurprisingly, they become unappealing for modelling other things, like falling or trap damage, and the abstraction becomes more uncomfortable once you start talking about healing, lasting injures and the like.

Marking is an abstraction of... what? Some sort of style that makes it harder to hit your allies while simultaneously forcing the foe to let it's guard down whenever it does so. It's not really something that's reflected by fiction, and it's not really something that's easy to reflect in my head. And that's before you factor in things like making 3 times as many attacks as normally possible, or doing more damage with those attacks, or forcing foes much larger than oneself to halt their movement.

Conversely the original knight mechanics make more sense to me: he issues a verbal challenge and all who hear it respond. That said, the compulsion of that action doesn't make a lot of sense still.

Now what I could understand would be some sort of issued challenge that caused a foe with a language to lose hitpoints if it doesn't take up the challenge, which is acceptable because of the abstract nature of hit points allowing them to cover morale.

 

[cbwjm]

Now what I could understand would be some sort of issued challenge that caused a foe with a language to lose hitpoints if it doesn't take up the challenge, which is acceptable because of the abstract nature of hit points allowing them to cover morale.

Whereas I think others would find this silly. It's not an ability that I would want a knight character to use on someone who is low on hit points such that when trying to escape, the knight issues a challenge, the opponent keeps running, then drops dead because he didn't accept the challenge. That I find ridiculous and if there was a subclass that did this then I would likely change the ability if a played wished to use it.