NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 7704851" data-attributes="member: 6801252">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?</blockquote>

Verification