Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 4287011" data-attributes="member: 9391">I don't think your role in combat has anything to do with your character's internal motivations unless you want it to. The fighter doesn't fill the Defender role because he's a masochist, he does it because if *someone* has to go toe-to-toe with the monsters, he's better equipped and trained to do so and live than the guy in a robe. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If soliders get trained to fight in a fashion that allows them to hold the line and protect their allies -- that's not altruism, it's survival. You don't even have to like your allies for it to make sense to want to keep them alive and able to do their jobs. Marking is just an abstraction of a fighter's ability to find openings and take advantage of them. There's no supernatural "You must attack me" compulsion, we're talking about a big armored dude with a sword bearing down on you. Turning away from him to hit an easier target gives him an opening. One mark at a time is simply because most of the time it's difficult to present a credible immediate threat to two people at once, and  it makes the abstraction a bit simpler. (There are a number of higher-level powers that allow you to apply multiple marks, as well.)They did. Warlords and rogues have some handy abilities to do so. They work pretty well in concert -- with a mixed adventuring party, that's as close as you get to phalanx-style combat, pretty much. I think your concerns rise from the level of abstraction involved in 4e. There are mechanical benefits for things like holding the line, protecting your vulnerable allies, etc. How they're described in the in-game fiction doesn't have to match up with how the mechanics handle things. The mechanics give you the end effect, it's up to the folks at the table to decide how that translates into what "really happens" in the game world. If you want mechanics that describe in detail how it plays out in the fiction instead of giving the effects and letting you decide how to depict it, 4e doesn't really do that.And now, having spent all that time arguing with you, I'll proceed to agree with you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I think there's a lot of mileage in a game with solid mechanical rules for military fighting formations. I'd love to do a Greek/Roman themed game with that kind of detail, or maybe something like The Black Company. That'd be pretty sweet. It's just not what 4e was aiming for.</blockquote>

Verification