Were the four roles correctly identified, or are there others?

[Manbearcat]

I guess I just don't understand the idea that the Defender is the most dangerous. Isn't deadly attacks on an enemy who isn't paying attention the province of the Striker? Isn't that the iconic power of the Rogue with Backstab?

Also, doesn't this idea make 2+ Defenders insanely powerful? The enemy can only focus on one Defender at a time, so the other Defender becomes the most dangerous, and promptly destroys the enemy.

Under this formulation of "the Defender is too powerful to safely ignore", isn't Defender + Defender significantly better than than Defender + Striker?

Here is the formulation:

Striker: Deploys his adverse effect on opposition (damage) as a matter of practice.

Defender: Deploys a catch-22 that leaves the opposition with no good choices but one option (attack the defender and deal with his sturdiness) is somewhat less punitive than the other (ignore the defender and invoke his wrath; striker + damage, punitive control effect, mitigation effect or some combination).

Further, a Defender's catch-22 is a product of (i) his sturdiness and (ii) his melee control. Due to fact that the mark mechanics cancel each other out, two defenders cannot simultaneously deploy the necessaries of their melee control package on the same opponent.

 

[GSHamster]

Further, a Defender's catch-22 is a product of (i) his sturdiness and (ii) his melee control. Due to fact that the mark mechanics cancel each other out, two defenders cannot simultaneously deploy the necessaries of their melee control package on the same opponent.

Right, but consider the idea that game combat is a simulation of "real" combat. Striker mechanics are somewhat analogous to real combat. Sneak Attack is simulating someone who is very good at exploiting an enemies distractedness.

But marking is a pure game mechanic. It is not simulating anything. That is why I'm saying that it is an "artificial" game mechanic. However, since this artificial mechanic is required to make Defenders work, I think that means Defenders are an artificial role. Defenders exist in the game, but don't exist in the reality that the game is supposed to be simulating.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ensnaring was pointless. Plain and simple.

I think you really underestimate Assault though. It gets stronger at higher levels because the fighter's mark punishment only triggers against adjacent enemies, and the fighter has no means of preventing teleportation. They are also not quite as vulnerable to forced movement as the Knight, but not that far off.

And I think if I were writing a Shielding Swordmage (and I partly am - I need some trifold classes to go with my Trifold 4e) I'd simply say "The target is weakened until it makes an attack roll against you or until you bind someone else". End of story.

Weakened might be a bit harsh, but I'd have to think about it. It certainly works mechanically, but remember that the Aegis works only against ONE ATTACK per round, weakened could sometimes be MUCH more potent (against a lot of solos with multi-attacks).

I'm not sure why you say Ensnaring is always worthless. There are times that getting a bad guy out of the middle of the party is darn handy. Any sort of forced teleportation can potentially open up at least a few tricks. Its not a GOOD shtick because its just not a general routine to build a PC around, but it isn't a BAD trick to have up your sleeve. Its something that might make a good daily or encounter power, but not a class feature.

Assault, meh, yeah, its not vulnerable to forced movement, but honestly fighters don't get pushed around THAT much. I never saw that many PCs having a lot of trouble with that, and a LOT of your basic fighters are dwarves too, which kinda already cured the problem (and I believe there's also a feat).

Anyway, I agree with you and basically all of charops that Shielding is the only usable Aegis, and it does get a bit weak at high levels. Even THEN SMs have some nice tricks, and are quite tough. I think a 5/10 bonus to the damage shielding would do the trick, don't you?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, but consider the idea that game combat is a simulation of "real" combat. Striker mechanics are somewhat analogous to real combat. Sneak Attack is simulating someone who is very good at exploiting an enemies distractedness.

But marking is a pure game mechanic. It is not simulating anything. That is why I'm saying that it is an "artificial" game mechanic. However, since this artificial mechanic is required to make Defenders work, I think that means Defenders are an artificial role. Defenders exist in the game, but don't exist in the reality that the game is supposed to be simulating.

I think the intent of marking is to simulate the difficulty an opponent has in actually ignoring the fighter. An enemy may move away and engage another target, but it either does so with awkward haste or excessive caution. In either case whatever attack it launches at its target is a less potent one than it would have been. I don't think its a terribly unrealistic mechanic when looked at that way. I can understand where there are situations where it might feel a bit strained, but what would be the alternative, that the GM constantly use his judgement to decide if an enemy is 'really distracted' by the fighter? It doesn't sound viable. I never had a big problem with marking narratively. If a bad guy missed BECAUSE of a mark I always just described it as something the fighter managed to do to make the attack miss.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But marking is a pure game mechanic. It is not simulating anything. That is why I'm saying that it is an "artificial" game mechanic. However, since this artificial mechanic is required to make Defenders work, I think that means Defenders are an artificial role. Defenders exist in the game, but don't exist in the reality that the game is supposed to be simulating.

You are totally wrong, I'm afraid, marking represents marking. You know marking, from sports? You've done it, if you've played basketball, or soccer, or football. You might think the name would be a giveaway? Remember that 6' plus muscle-y guy who is right by you when you're trying to catch the ball or whatever? (or were you that guy? I know I was!)Remember how distracting that was? And he had rules against being able to attack you unless you had the ball... The Fighter doesn't...

More specifically, it represents the fact that the Fighter (or whoever) is so dangerous, and such a threat in your mind, that you cannot focus your attention properly on attacking the target. This is why the mark applies to you, the monster, not to the target being protected - because it is in YOUR mind.

This breaks down a little with non-sentient or suicidal enemies, but it's one of a hundred systems that breaks down there. The DM can just RP them ignoring it, or design them so that they are immune to marks, if it's a big issue.

 

[Manbearcat]

Right, but consider the idea that game combat is a simulation of "real" combat. Striker mechanics are somewhat analogous to real combat. Sneak Attack is simulating someone who is very good at exploiting an enemies distractedness.

But marking is a pure game mechanic. It is not simulating anything. That is why I'm saying that it is an "artificial" game mechanic. However, since this artificial mechanic is required to make Defenders work, I think that means Defenders are an artificial role. Defenders exist in the game, but don't exist in the reality that the game is supposed to be simulating.

I don't agree with that premise. I've written about it on several occasions in other areas. I find both marking and martial forced movement to be fundamental paradigms in martial skirmishes including multiple participants, be it a sport or actual physical conflict.

Marking in physical combat is the Hoplite on your left or your right. If an enemy ignores his potential aggression and tries to get past his shield to get an angle of attack on you, he's putting a spear in that guy's ribs or that guy is getting a face full of shield. Its the guy laying down suppressing fire or charging the foxhole as you move into a nearby flanking position to deploy battery-destroying munitions. He has your back with both steadfast courage/dedication/sacrifice and the finely honed martial instincts and prowess to underwrite that promise.

Marking in the martial exchange of contact sports is the weakside defender coming to protect the rim when a strongside offender breaks down the defense and now must decide to take a difficult, challenged shot or hopefully get the ball to the open man. Its the guard in man to man defense getting up in the face of the offensive player and denying him the ball, forcing the offensive player to work extra hard if he wants to get a scoring opportunity or even get into the play. Its the defensemen maintaining the integrity of his back-checking discipline and patrolling the neutral zone, forever forcing any forward to keep his head on a swivel as he tries to penetrate into the offensive zone, lest he have the puck separated from his stick (or his head separated from his shoulders). Its a forward aggressively fore-checking a defenseman, forcing them to reverse the puck, retreat or potentially turn it over in a bad position. There are dozens of (American) football examples but those are enough.

Marking, the term itself, may merely be functional jargon to expedite a sort of play in a game (eg Defending). But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as an actual concept in a myriad of incarnations within the scope of any martial skirmish. In fact, the concept of "marking" and melee control is rife within them. In fact, its such a common, pervasive element that I'll flatly contend that any system that doesn't present a means to at least attempt to abstract it isn't even trying to simulate the properties of actual martial exchanges.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This breaks down a little with non-sentient or suicidal enemies, but it's one of a hundred systems that breaks down there. The DM can just RP them ignoring it, or design them so that they are immune to marks, if it's a big issue.

Right, that's the beauty of a system like this, you can easily make a simple exception if its really important. Like all 'immunities' you want to be careful with it, but I don't see a problem with there being some sort of super deadly assassin monster that locks onto a target and blasts right past most defenders. It won't show up too often and when it does some other character will figure out how to deal with it, or the party will just live with the consequences.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Weakened might be a bit harsh, but I'd have to think about it. It certainly works mechanically, but remember that the Aegis works only against ONE ATTACK per round, weakened could sometimes be MUCH more potent (against a lot of solos with multi-attacks).

On the other hand I've taken the -2 to hit, and attacking the swordmage ends things entirely.

I'm not sure why you say Ensnaring is always worthless. There are times that getting a bad guy out of the middle of the party is darn handy.

If it were one option among several, you'd be right. But it's very situational and as a standard mark punishment therefore almost pointless for the purpose it's intended. If it were something from a toolbox (something like teleported, slowed, or prone) it would work.

Anyway, I agree with you and basically all of charops that Shielding is the only usable Aegis, and it does get a bit weak at high levels. Even THEN SMs have some nice tricks, and are quite tough. I think a 5/10 bonus to the damage shielding would do the trick, don't you?

I think that Assault is workable - just not very good. But then I consider the Bladesinger usable, and the Hunter just about passable. (Executioners only in the right campaign and Sentinels and Binders not so much).

 

[pemerton]

Striker mechanics are somewhat analogous to real combat. Sneak Attack is simulating someone who is very good at exploiting an enemies distractedness.

But marking is a pure game mechanic. It is not simulating anything. That is why I'm saying that it is an "artificial" game mechanic.

I think of fighter marking in a couple of ways.

One is the way it has been described by [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION] above - as a simulation of an attacker locking down a defender via manoeuvring, physical size and sheer irresistible presence.

But my preferred way, overall, is to think of fighter marking in metagame terms: the marking player puts an "unluck" token on the GM's characters, giving the GM an incentive to have those characters attack the fighter. Furthermore, if the GM ignores that incentive, the fighter gets to make more attacks. So fighter marking creates a pressure towards one of two narratives - either the fighter is going berserk, hacking away at everything that moves; or the fighter is facing off in a duel (or something like a duel) with an enemy who will not attack anyone else. Both of these are (in my view) pretty archetypal concepts of the fighter; whereas a fighter who is neither duelling a foe nor laying into everything that moves, but rather is just tocking away while the NPCs mostly ignore him/her, is in my view a bit lame.

And I don't regard a mechanic that has the function of producing a satisfactory, archetypically-resonant story, as artificial (or not distinctively so, beyond the fact that all game mechanics are artifices). I regard it as good.

 

[Bluenose]

But marking is a pure game mechanic. It is not simulating anything.

Have you heard of something called "Suppressive fire"? Or "Initiative"? Forcing someone into a position where they aren't able to attack as effectively is so fundamental to combat - both in Sport and War - that not having mechanics for it seems to be to be getting further away from simulation.