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

[the Jester]

But it isn't that thing.

No, it's not; however, it serves a very similar purpose (enhancing stickiness), so I agree that it's a callback to 4e to evoke the defender options therein.

Personally, I haven't used marking in 5e, but I think I'm going to have it out there as a special option that creatures can pick up via training or perhaps a magic item effect or something. I'm curious what those who've used it think of the option.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Personally, I haven't used marking in 5e, but I think I'm going to have it out there as a special option that creatures can pick up via training or perhaps a magic item effect or something. I'm curious what those who've used it think of the option.

The two best classes to use it, IMO, are Barbarian and Paladin. Barbarians because of their durability and damage bonus in Rage. Paladins because they can Smite on their OAs, and Lv. 11+ they have that extra damage on their OAs constantly.

Lv. 11+ Fighters can mark the most enemies, but they won't do a whole lot of damage with their OAs. With Sentinel they'll be very sticky, though, although Fighters can't take near the punishment Barbarians can.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But it isn't that thing.

Welcome to 5th edition, where (almost) everything you loved about 4e is either ignored entirely, kept in name but not at all in spirit, or not even kept in name OR in spirit....and with all three, you'll be repeatedly told that there's a "clear 4e influence" via those things.

As for the subject at hand: having looked up the precise rules-text, and a discussion of it on the WotC forums, I think the solution suggested there is a good one if you want to avoid "Everyone Poops Marks."* Specifically, make Marking something that only people with the Protection fighting style can do. As Saelorn said there, this not only gives Protection a much-needed boost compared to the other styles, it also synergizes very nicely with how Protection style requires your Reaction.

*Sorry, couldn't resist a tongue-in-cheek joke there. I love the concept of marking--as implemented in 4e, anyway--because it's the first "monster attention mechanic" I've seen that actually makes goddamn sense, by forcing a terrible choice. (That is, compared to the "Threat" mechanic in most MMOs, which amounts to monster mind-control.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lv. 11+ Fighters can mark the most enemies, but they won't do a whole lot of damage with their OAs. With Sentinel they'll be very sticky, though, although Fighters can't take near the punishment Barbarians can.

Eldritch Knights with Shield, Blur, and Blink up are extremely durable. Admittedly, Blink does make you pretty rubbish at blocking attackers the way we're talking about on this thread--but AC 26 with disadvantage to be hit and Blink is far superior to AC 20 (assuming Dex 18, Con 18 and a shield) and resistance to damage. Against three Fire Giants in melee range for example the barbarian is going to be taking 40.95 DPR (64.74 DPR if he Reckless Attacks) even after resistance, but the Eldritch Knight will be taking only 2.05 DPR for as long as he has Shields to spend (he has to sheathe his weapon every turn of course), and even without Shield he only takes 13.6 DPR until he loses concentration on Blur. When Blur is gone then he takes 36.75, which is still less than the non-raging Barbarian.

Eldritch Knights can nova on defense far better than Barbarians can.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, it's not; however, it serves a very similar purpose (enhancing stickiness), so I agree that it's a callback to 4e to evoke the defender options therein.

Personally, I haven't used marking in 5e, but I think I'm going to have it out there as a special option that creatures can pick up via training or perhaps a magic item effect or something. I'm curious what those who've used it think of the option.

But the beef here isn't the mechanics. The beef is the name.

Thus, when it does something similar and does not do what it says on the lid, that is the argument.

 

[CapnZapp]

Welcome to 5th edition, where (almost) everything you loved about 4e is either ignored entirely, kept in name but not at all in spirit, or not even kept in name OR in spirit....and with all three, you'll be repeatedly told that there's a "clear 4e influence" via those things.

As for the subject at hand: having looked up the precise rules-text, and a discussion of it on the WotC forums, I think the solution suggested there is a good one if you want to avoid "Everyone Poops Marks."* Specifically, make Marking something that only people with the Protection fighting style can do. As Saelorn said there, this not only gives Protection a much-needed boost compared to the other styles, it also synergizes very nicely with how Protection style requires your Reaction.

*Sorry, couldn't resist a tongue-in-cheek joke there. I love the concept of marking--as implemented in 4e, anyway--because it's the first "monster attention mechanic" I've seen that actually makes goddamn sense, by forcing a terrible choice. (That is, compared to the "Threat" mechanic in most MMOs, which amounts to monster mind-control.)

Making it something only some people can do does solve the issue.

But without that houserule the issue remains.

 

[ShadowSeeker]

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.

This poses the question whether or not an enemy knows that it was marked with an attack.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This poses the question whether or not an enemy knows that it was marked with an attack.

Well, if it still means anything even remotely like what it meant in 4e (which it may or may not!), "marked" is not (necessarily) a mystical state of being, not a subtle enchantment wrought upon the unsuspecting so as to spring upon them unawares.

"Marking" is what it is in football (or "soccer" as we stubbornly call it here in the US). That is: a player focused on defense "marks" either particular opponents, hounding them, denying them movement, and generally making their actions cumbersome and difficult; or the player "marks" a particular region of the field, and hounds anyone with the ball who passes through it. (In 4e, the two might be referred to as "original" and "essentials-style" marking, since pre-Essentials Defenders in general mark particular enemies by overt choice, while both of the Essentials Defender subclasses, Knight and Cavalier, mark anyone who comes near them.)

Given its nature as a "hound your enemies and prevent them from acting the way they wish to" situation, it seems pretty clear to me that yes, any being that is capable of understanding "this beyotch is all up in my grill" would know "it has been marked," or (as I'd prefer to say it) "someone is marking it."

Edit: I prefer the latter phrasing because it emphasizes that marking is an ongoing action, or perhaps more accurately an ongoing pattern of behavior, on the part of the originator. Hence why most 4e marks, with a few unusual and always supernatural exceptions, require that the player remain "engaged" with the target, meaning you were adjacent to it when you ended your turn, or you attacked it at some point during your turn. Mentally picturing it as purely a status of the recipient, rather than a penalty continuously inflicted by the originator, can lead to some logical hangups.

 

[Mercule]

Welcome to 5th edition, where (almost) everything you loved about 4e is either ignored entirely, kept in name but not at all in spirit, or not even kept in name OR in spirit....and with all three, you'll be repeatedly told that there's a "clear 4e influence" via those things.

Well, they brought over everything I liked about 4E.

* Wait! I was actually switched from D&D to nWoD just before 4E was announced. I have little-to-no actual opinion. Just gentle ribbing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, they brought over everything I liked about 4E.

* Wait! I was actually switched from D&D to nWoD just before 4E was announced. I have little-to-no actual opinion. Just gentle ribbing.

Understood. That said though, you'd be surprised how many people who don't like 4e, and maybe even never played or read 4e, find a "strong 4e influence" in 5e.

Also, if we're being pedantic, if you never played 4e and thus have no opinion, both of us are correct! The set of things you liked about 4e is empty, due to having no things you like OR dislike, which makes it a (proper) subset of the things present in 5e. Similarly, "almost everything you loved" would also be an empty set, and thus a proper subset of all the things I listed. But that's hyper-pedantic logic-math talk there.