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

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

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

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. .

I can't speak for everyone, but my issue with something like this isn't marking itself, but in how it can be applied. In this particular case as written, the opponent suffers disadvantage against anyone it attacks other than you, even if you attack and are no longer near it. I.e., you can run in, mark it, and run back out and the monster still gets the disadvantage even if you're no longer in the area.

That being said, I think 5e did a way better job at handling things like this. I think this knight ability can make sense, because they added in things like "creatures that can't be frightened are immune." That solves the "it makes no sense if you're fighting something like a black pudding." issues for me. It's WAY better than 4e's Come and Get It, which was just bonkers on how little it made sense

And to reiterate my position, it wasn't so much marking I was against, that was just the example brought up. My point I argued earlier was that anyone who likes a mechanic that is really only liked by a minority (whether that be marking, damage on a miss, save or die, level drain, etc), then that person can't demand that the game include that mechanic. It certainly doesn't mean any fan of any one edition is being disregarded or shunned, especially if we can point to other things from that edition that are included. I see that one a lot ("My favorite mechanic isn't in the game, so WotC LIED to us and they're not inclusive at all!") There are finite resources and finite time, so I would rather have the designers working on things that would benefit the most gamers. That's plain business sense as well. So I'm not holding my breath that they will put out optional rules to incorporate save or die into the game any time soon.

 

[Colder]

So since everybody is in, let's just face it, universal agreement that these subclasses' names make them literally unplayable, I'd like to propose some generic alternatives.

Arcane Archer- Magic Bowman, Arrow Enchanter, Eldritch Artillery

Knight- Armored Protector, Mounted Defender, Horse-riding Shieldy Guy

Samurai- Erudite Slayer, Noble Swordsman, Polite Fighting Man

Sharpshooter- Bowman, Bow Specialist, Long-range Fighty Man, Eagle-eye

Maybe if we all put our noggins together, we can fix these travesties.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Except he's not supposed to "remain more concerned" with the fighter. The enemy has a -2 to hit, representing the fighter's efforts to hinder attacks, and if he attacks someone else, the fighter gets tot ake advantage of the opening and attack.

This isnt even remotely gamist, its pure simulation. I dont see how this is remotely confusing to people.

 

[Corwin]

Except he's not supposed to "remain more concerned" with the fighter.

Do you find pedantry to be a useful debating tool in general? IMX, its always tended to lack any real teeth.

The enemy has a -2 to hit, representing the fighter's efforts to hinder attacks, and if he attacks someone else, the fighter gets [to take] advantage of the opening and attack.

Having played 4e extensively for years, I was already familiar. But thanks for reiterating what it does irregardless.

This isnt even remotely gamist, its pure simulation. I dont see how this is remotely confusing to people.

When I see my friend next week, I'll let him know you have invalidated his dislike of it. And that you've successfully converted his dislike instead into a lack of understanding. I'm sure he'll be thrilled.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Except you dont want everyone's playstyle supported, as evidenced by your little hissyfit over one optional subclass getting one mechanic calling back to 4E. THIS OPTION ISNT FOR YOU. Stop trying to dictate it, and use the ones that are designed for your tastes. Its not like there's any shortage of those.

You may as well whine about the help action granting advantage. "Whaaa, my guy/monster wouldnt be distracted by the enemy's efforts!"

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except you dont want everyone's playstyle supported, as evidenced by your little hissyfit over one optional subclass getting one mechanic calling back to 4E. "

Is it even possible for you to reply to someone without insulting them? Serious question. You've done it at least a few times just in this thread alone.

 

[RotGrub]

Except you dont want everyone's playstyle supported, as evidenced by your little hissyfit over one optional subclass getting one mechanic calling back to 4E. THIS OPTION ISNT FOR YOU. Stop trying to dictate it, and use the ones that are designed for your tastes. Its not like there's any shortage of those.

You may as well bitch about the help action granting advantage. "Whaaa, my guy/monster wouldnt be distracted by the enemy's efforts!"

Completely incorrect. My opinion is that there should be options for everyone. What I don't agree with is how these options are being prescribed. In this case, I'd rather see a Knight sub class that is modular and not exclusive to a particular style of play without modification.

With that said, there is no need to be angry. At this rate, I do predict that 4e justice warriors will get their warlord subclass. It's only mater of time now.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Is it even possible for you to reply to someone without insulting them? Serious question. You've done it at least a few times just in this thread alone.

I've had plenty of replies with decent people that would attest to yes.

I just have a hard time accepting in good faith those who demand that someone else not get an option they have been waiting for, when they don't ever have to use it

 

[kalil]

With that said, there is no need to be angry. At this rate, I do predict that 4e justice warriors will get their warlord subclass. It's only mater of time now.

And you obviously do not want this. You go so far as using degradory terminology to describe us fans of 4e. You make me sad. I wish our community could be better than this hateful morrass.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've had plenty of replies with decent people that would attest to yes.

So it's possible, but you just choose to insult people needlessly then?

Like serious question here. Do you not see how incredibly selfish it is to demand that someone else not get an option they have been waiting for, when you don't ever have to use it?

If someone is demanding that someone else not get their option, then yes, that's just as selfish as someone demanding TO get that option, and there's nothing wrong with saying, "that's pretty selfish." What's not OK is stuff like this:

You sim-guys with your fragile v-tudes. Man, I almost feel bad for people with such limited and concrete imaginations

......

you're going to pitch a fit anyways until you get your way, because its all about you, and screw everyone with different tastes.

......

Look, there are people that believe the earth is flat. Others think magnets make no sense. But marking makes complete sense from an in-game simulation and narrative perspective if you arent going in with raging 4E hatred blinders on.

.....

as evidenced by your little hissyfit