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

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

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

Marking is an abstraction that represents obstruction, harassing foes who try to ignore you or pass by you, and fierceness or fearsomeness that makes ignoring you difficult because your opponent is/feels threatened by you. Someone previously mentioned the "guards" in the NBA. Now, I'm not a sports girl, but based on the limited amount of basketball coverage I've seen, that sounds like an apt comparison, only with stabbings and slashings instead of attempting to steal or deflect the ball.

 

[Xeviat]

Yeah, it's about harrying. If you all out wail on someone frantically, for instance, it's very easy to block those attacks, but you also don't want to ignore them. You can hard strike a weapon to knock it away from your allies. Heck, it could simply be engagement if it was a universal mechanic. You don't not attack someone who is attacking you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Istbor]

I think these guys pretty much said it. Marking is getting into the opponents face, and making it harder for them to simply ignore you.

To follow suit my example would be, a dire wolf, he spots the tasty looking wizard in robes first, but then this big brute in metal slashes at it, hitting it or not, (I think for the actual mechanic it is a hit?) that wolf would likely pay closer attention to the immediate threat to its person than the more tasty thing.

While I thought the verbal challenge was a decent concept, I don't see anything wrong with a competent warrior being able to manipulate a beast by her mere presence or action, when intending to prove a threat. Doesn't have to work 100% of the time and it shouldn't.

 

[Corwin]

I enjoyed 4e for what it was. Played it for years. Liked the way it used marking as an aggro mechanic. Fun stuff. I can totally see the problem some people have with it. I remember my friend, who occasionally DMed, telling me one reason why it bothered him. He recalled an encounter where we were fighting some scary solo something-or-other (I confess I don't recall the particulars from years ago, but its largely irrelevant to the point, anyway). My uncle's fighter kept missing with his turn's attack (he is renowned for his terrible luck with dice). Something like three or four rounds in a row, but that kept it marked. Meanwhile, our resident barbarian was decimating the thing. Yet, somehow the monster was supposed to remain more concerned with the fighter. For "reasons". Anyway, this thread reminded me of that discussion, so I felt like sharing.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I enjoyed 4e for what it was. Played it for years. Liked the way it used marking as an aggro mechanic. Fun stuff. I can totally see the problem some people have with it. I remember my friend, who occasionally DMed, telling me one reason why it bothered him. He recalled an encounter where we were fighting some scary solo something-or-other (I confess I don't recall the particulars from years ago, but its largely irrelevant to the point, anyway). My uncle's fighter kept missing with his turn's attack (he is renowned for his terrible luck with dice). Something like three or four rounds in a row, but that kept it marked. Meanwhile, our resident barbarian was decimating the thing. Yet, somehow the monster was supposed to remain more concerned with the fighter. For "reasons". Anyway, this thread reminded me of that discussion, so I felt like sharing.

See, this is actually what makes it's 4e design so brilliant- a mark is a punishment and a penalty, but not a compulsion- back on the WOTC boards and on here, we would occasionally get stories about how DM's would always or never obey the mark and about how it caused problems.

In reality, every time the DM selects a target they have a choice to make- should i attack the person who has me marked (potentially wasting my attack on a defender with high HP and Defenses) or do I want to attack his friend who's destroying me (at the risk of the mark punishment, whatever that may happen to be) and it gave the player a really interesting dynamic: you don't want your HP and defenses too high, because otherwise the informed monster will always ignore the mark and you're not much of a defender and you don't have the features to be good at anything else, but you also don't want your mark punishment to be too brutal, because then they'll never trigger it by even trying to attack an ally, which is how you do your damage in some cases. It quite naturally makes players balance the two factors in such a way that neither is completely dominant.

 

[Corwin]

See, this is actually what makes it's 4e design so brilliant- a mark is a punishment and a penalty, but not a compulsion- back on the WOTC boards and on here, we would occasionally get stories about how DM's would always or never obey the mark and about how it caused problems.

In reality, every time the DM selects a target they have a choice to make- should i attack the person who has me marked (potentially wasting my attack on a defender with high HP and Defenses) or do I want to attack his friend who's destroying me (at the risk of the mark punishment, whatever that may happen to be) and it gave the player a really interesting dynamic: you don't want your HP and defenses too high, because otherwise the informed monster will always ignore the mark and you're not much of a defender and you don't have the features to be good at anything else, but you also don't want your mark punishment to be too brutal, because then they'll never trigger it by even trying to attack an ally, which is how you do your damage in some cases. It quite naturally makes players balance the two factors in such a way that neither is completely dominant.

You are talking about the game side of it. Which I totally get. And, again, I liked. I was recounting a friend's concerns with how it sometimes didn't mesh with the narrative in-game. I get where he was coming from. The implication that the monster was artificially made to be more concerned with the fighter over the barbarian. As represented by the mark's effects over it. Regardless of how the fight was actually playing out. It just never bothered me as much as it did him, I guess. <shrug>

 

[RotGrub]

I think these guys pretty much said it. Marking is getting into the opponents face, and making it harder for them to simply ignore you.

To follow suit my example would be, a dire wolf, he spots the tasty looking wizard in robes first, but then this big brute in metal slashes at it, hitting it or not, (I think for the actual mechanic it is a hit?) that wolf would likely pay closer attention to the immediate threat to its person than the more tasty thing.

While I thought the verbal challenge was a decent concept, I don't see anything wrong with a competent warrior being able to manipulate a beast by her mere presence or action, when intending to prove a threat. Doesn't have to work 100% of the time and it shouldn't.

These are explanations of the sort that we heard before by 4e apologists. All of these explanations are dependent on the targets state of mind being manipulated and/or an undefined physical obstruction.

If marking is a form of mind warping, the target is being modified with complete disregard for its personality and psychological state, and it's being done without a saving throw.

If it's a physical obstruction, not only is the implied fear mechanic pointless, marking says nothing about the battlefield (distance, doors, corners, walls, spells, reach weapon situations, etc. ) that should logically prevent it from functioning.

Marking is an example of a 4e styled power that requires the mechanic-first narrative-later (if at all) style of play. Many old school gamers work from the narrative and use mechanics as means to an end.

This is why the Knight and Samurai are useless for my group. These sub classes are just a collection of mechanical porn and are not evocative of their named archetypes.

Lastly, pointing out that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play isn't whining. We should ALL want everyone's style of play to be supported. I'm all for the 4e justice warriors eating their cake, but when it's the only cake being offered in UA, don't pretend 5e is a game for everyone. That may have been a noble goal during the playtest, but the direction of support by WotC has moved away from that vision.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You are talking about the game side of it. Which I totally get. And, again, I liked. I was recounting a friend's concerns with how it sometimes didn't mesh with the narrative in-game. I get where he was coming from. The implication that the monster was artificially made to be more concerned with the fighter over the barbarian. As represented by the mark's effects over it. Regardless of how the fight was actually playing out. It just never bothered me as much as it did him, I guess. <shrug>

I mean yeah, but I guess what I'm saying is that I think in that situation it was your friend's failure for not ignoring the mark to attack the barbarian, as a DM there are a lot of ways he can break a narrative- placing monsters in places with no connection to narrative, or giving NPC's inconsistent abilities, or describing something badly. Having NPC's act stupidly or artificially is his choice, because he has two excellent solutions. We've always used them quite naturally.

1. The monster isn't actually concerned with the fighter and attacks the barbarian because of the barbarian's damage, they trigger the mark, but the attack goes off. Nothing wrong with the fighter finally landing a hit as the monster turns it's attention away from them, narratively speaking, and it's still hard to not be hindered (the -2 mark penalty) when someone is swinging at you and getting up in your grill, so that's fine either way. If the monster hasn't triggered the mark, they don't know about the fighter's unique ability to take advantage of the monster's underestimation of him.

2. The DM could have linked the mark narratively if they were making the decision to not trigger by attacking the fighter. He knows this effect is taking place, not describing it and treating it like some number thing is no different than just calling HP instead of also describing them as wounded or winded or whatever, or using an attack but not describing it. In the simulation of the game, the monster IS being hindered, so why restrict it to game rules only? Especially when pure mechanics would bother you?

 

[Corwin]

I mean yeah, but I guess what I'm saying is that I think in that situation it was your friend's failure for not ignoring the mark to attack the barbarian...

Actually, I never said either way how the monster acted. I honestly can't recall the fight with enough detail to remember how it played out. It was quite a few years ago. I just remember him expressing his concerns about how the mark impressed upon the monster a condition that did not correlate with the narrative playing out in the moment. That the fighter was largely ineffectual from the monster's perspective, especially compared to the barbarian. Yet the mark informed the monster that it should be more concerned with the fighter anyway. How the monster acted, whether the monster obeyed the mark or not, is really kinda irrelevant to the point he was making. The mark, and its effects, are there either way.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

These are explanations of the sort that we heard before by 4e apologists. All of these explanations are dependent on the targets state of mind being manipulated and/or an undefined physical obstruction.

If marking is a form of mind warping, the target is being modified with complete disregard for its personality and psychological state, and it's being done without a saving throw.

If it's a physical obstruction, not only is the implied fear mechanic pointless, marking says nothing about the battlefield (distance, doors, corners, walls, spells, reach weapon situations, etc. ) that should logically prevent it from functioning.

I would suggest it is more a case of the physical acts of the knight having an effect on the mental attitude of the marked target. Its no more "mind warping" than the Help action or a Charisma(Intimidate) check.

Marking is an example of a 4e styled power that requires the mechanic-first narrative-later (if at all) style of play. Many old school gamers work from the narrative and use mechanics as means to an end.

Not really. You can narrate the action just fine as a description of what your character is doing to apply the mechanics of the action. Its no more mechanic-first than casting a fireball spell.

This is why the Knight and Samurai are useless for my group. These sub classes are just a collection of mechanical porn and are not evocative of their named archetypes.

If none of your group wants to play a Fighter with the capabilities outlined in those subclasses, that is entirely their decision. Its been pointed out a couple of times that the name of the subclasses is pretty independent of their flavour. A Samurai-concept character could be a Fighter Champion, Knight, Samurai, Sharpshooter, Paladin etc.

Lastly, pointing out that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play isn't whining. We should ALL want everyone's style of play to be supported. I'm all for the 4e justice warriors eating their cake, but when it's the only cake being offered in UA, don't pretend 5e is a game for everyone. That may have been a noble goal during the playtest, but the direction of support by WotC has moved away from that vision.

OK. I think that's a bit disingenuous.
One ability of one subclass of a pointedly-optional additional content that you have a conceptual dislike with isn't really an indication of catering to only 4e fans.
Seriously, you're outright told that this isn't official material and is suitable for playtesting only.

You are not "pointing out that these UA sub classes are failing to consider other styles of play". Pointing out implies a visible existence. You're making a claim about the decisions, motives etc of the 5e devs based on your personal opinion only.