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

[Mercule]

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.

In full disclosure, we did play one adventure in 4E. It wasn't enough to make us switch systems, but I'm not completely clueless. I just wouldn't pass myself off as having enough knowledge to have a defensible opinion.

What little opinion I have is that 4E seemed like a fine game, but didn't really "feel" like D&D, to me. 3E was a huge overhaul, but converting our 2E game "felt" continuous. I can't imagine that being the same w/ 4E, barring heavy use of some late 3.5 supplements. Every now and then, I run into something in 5E (healing during short rests or powers usable X per short rest, for example) that make me think strongly of 4E. The base system is so different, though, that it's almost like saying they borrowed the background characteristics from Fate aspects -- you have to squint and turn your head a bit to really see it. I feel a little bad for 4E fans, but I'm mostly glad that the core mechanics look a lot more like the BECMI and 1E stuff I cut my teeth on. At least 3E continues on in Pathfinder.

I think the D&D "family tree" has a reasonably clear progression from BECMI to AD&D 1E to AD&D 2E. Then we have 3E, 4E, and 5E that all branch from 2E. The linearity of evolution totally disappeared. 5E really "feels" a lot more like "old school" D&D, to me, than either 3E or 4E. I'm okay with that. In retrospect, I really think that 5E would have been a better "3E" than 3E was, but we needed to pass through 3E and 4E to get to where we are, now. And, I really do include 4E in that evolution. We learned a lot about managing abilities and effects in new ways during 4E. Lots of "out of the box" thinking that got reintegrated into the lineage. It's very subtle (vanishingly so, in some cases) but it's there in ways that really improve the game, even for folks that loathed 4E, though they might be chagrinned if they figured that out.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

At-will magic and overnight full-heal will do that.

While these issues weren't that big of a deal in 4E, due to the nature of 4E combat and story pacing; these things were huge in earlier editions, which is why they seem disproportionately meaningful.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

That was Mercule's joke.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

But without that houserule the issue remains.

So what? It's an optional rule to begin with.

 

[spinozajack]

If one feat is to be considered an "optional rule", then is a spell? Is fireball an optional rule? Are longswords? Those are all options listed in the PHB that aren't labelled "Optional Rule" in a sidebar. Generally feats are considered optional wholesale, and DMs can certainly ban anything piecemeal at their table, but the default rules for 5th edition D&D include all the combat styles, feats, spells, classes, subclasses, races, weapons, armor, contained in the book. I guess a feat is a "rule", but it's not optional in the same way that Vitality is, or penalties for Oath violation.

As a DM one can ban feats, and as a player one can not choose that feat or option. But as a player the only choice you have if another player picks an option you dislike like marking is to quit the game. That's why "so what". People didn't want marking in the game because it didn't make sense in many circumstances.

If 5th edition didn't have things like marking, full heal every night, hit dice, and second wind, it would be a better game for me. That's not to say those things are awful, I just prefer not to play with them. If another player tried to mark a non-sentient enemy like a spore or a swarm or something insubstantial like a ghost, and then argued with the DM when it didn't work in every circumstance, I would probably stop playing with them. I'm grateful that hasn't happened yet.

Marking was one of the most immersion wrecking aspects of 4th edition and it's a good thing that it's gone, for the most part. In my humble opinion, of course.

In somewhat related news, it looks like they might be preparing some kind of "errata" document finally. Whatever that may be. This from a link someone discovered over at Wizards.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If one feat is to be considered an "optional rule", then is a spell? Is fireball an optional rule? Are longswords? Those are all options listed in the PHB that aren't labelled "Optional Rule" in a sidebar. Generally feats are considered optional wholesale, and DMs can certainly ban anything piecemeal at their table, but the default rules for 5th edition D&D include all the combat styles, feats, spells, classes, subclasses, races, weapons, armor, contained in the book.

The default includes the common races, all classes (and sub-classes), all spells, all equipment - basically, anything that isn't explicitly called out as optional.

The uncommon races, and feats, are explicitly labelled as optional, both as a whole and individually. In order for a given feat to be allowed, the optional rule to allow feats must be in place, and the optional rule to allow that specific feat must be in place.

It is also stated that the DM can just disallow anything, piecemeal, but that's another level beyond the default.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If one feat is to be considered an "optional rule", then is a spell?

DMG marking isn't a feat. It's a variant rule, like spell points.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If one feat is to be considered an "optional rule", then is a spell?

Feats are optional. If the DM doesn't opt-in feats, then all you get are stat bumps.

But, marking is not a feat, it's an optional combat rule in the DMG. Optional. Choosing to use it is no different than any other house rule the DM decides on for his table. Modding such an optional rule, then, is no big deal.

Modding any rule, really, is no big deal. This is 5e rulings-not-rules, not 3.x RAW.

As a DM one can ban feats, and as a player one can not choose that feat or option. But as a player the only choice you have if another player picks an option you dislike like marking is to quit the game. That's why "so what". People didn't want marking in the game because it didn't make sense in many circumstances.

If you're a DM, you can obviously choose not to introduce optional rules you don't like, or change/ban standard ones, or introduce house rules.

If you're a player, and you don't want to play by a DM's rules, and want to begrudge other players who are enjoying playing under those rules their fun, then, yes, you should not play at that DM's table. Doing so would be disruptive.

 

[spinozajack]

I thought marking was in a feat, must have been a dream. I'm happy for you guys that it's there, as an optional rule. I would probably never join a game where the DM allowed it, because it would probably come with many more aspects and assumptions and optional rules and houserules that I wouldn't be comfortable with. I generally think the base rules, despite a few gross imbalances, work fairly well and doesn't require any house ruling beyond nerfing a feat or two. And a couple other things that need a boost, like Enlarge person.