D&D 5E What is the point of the mark combat option?

[ShadowSeeker]

Mark seems more like a variant rule than a real combat option as it is not limited in its use in any way. Wouldn't everbody mark his target with every attack just in case? And wouldn't it be easier to just assume that every attack marks it target?

 

[Celtavian]

Simulate a 4E capability that no longer exists in 5E save as an optional rule if memory serves.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Mark seems more like a variant rule than a real combat option as it is not limited in its use in any way. Wouldn't everbody mark his target with every attack just in case? And wouldn't it be easier to just assume that every attack marks it target?

Yes, and yes. It is a variant rule, and yes it has the effect of making everybody "stickier" as long as they are using melee attacks. Use it if you think melee attacks need a little bit of extra help in 5E. And yeah, I wouldn't force players to declare the mark, just have them keep track of whom they've attacked.

 

[CapnZapp]

I might be wrong, but as I read the OP he more wants/expects "mark" as an ability
- Not everybody can do
- Not something you do all the time
(take your pick)

As in, either it's a special feature only few can do (a new fighter subclass perhaps) but then do all the time (or as much as the rules allow, there can be limitations) or, if it's something everyone can do, marking comes with disadvantages so you only do it sometimes but not always.

The DMG variant, however, isn't either of these. Despite being called marking, it's not what that term used to mean; it's more like a general damage bonus to add stickiness.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The DMG variant, however, isn't either of these. Despite being called marking, it's not what that term used to mean; it's more like a general damage bonus to add stickiness.

I know only in the vaguest sense what that term used to mean in 4E, and I agree that it's kind of weird that the DMG calls this "marking". Maybe they just couldn't think of a better name, but I'd call it "engaging." "You've engaged three goblins and now if any of them retreat without disengaging, you get an opportunity attack." Simple and clear.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, there is disconnect in that nobody actually marks anyone.

Engaging is a better word in conveying a natural part of combat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wouldn't everbody mark his target with every attack just in case? And wouldn't it be easier to just assume that every attack marks it target?

Marking is an incentive for the opponent to not provoke an opportunity attack. There might be situations where you don't want to do that. For example, if a strong enemy is very low on health, it might otherwise choose to flee rather than fight. By encouraging it to stay, it may instead decide to attack you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, "engage" is starting to look better and better.

 

[Jester David]

I know only in the vaguest sense what that term used to mean in 4E, and I agree that it's kind of weird that the DMG calls this "marking". Maybe they just couldn't think of a better name, but I'd call it "engaging." "You've engaged three goblins and now if any of them retreat without disengaging, you get an opportunity attack." Simple and clear.

It's a legacy term. It was called "marking" in 4th edition so they called it the same thing, so it would be easily identified for what it is.

 

[CapnZapp]

But it isn't that thing.