Give Fighter's Marking Back

Marking was a great boon given to the fighter in 4e and I would like for them to get it back.
This is my idea in which it can be implemented.

Class Features

Level 1: Combat Tactics

The fighter with his extensive combat experience has learned a number of tactics to insure his party's success. These tactics are represented as a tactical point that can be used in battle.
Benefit: You gain a single tactical point, this point may be spent to initiate a tactic. You must be able to take actions to spend this point. At the start of each of your turns you regain this tactical point. As you gain in levels, you gain additional tactics. At 1st level you have mastered Combat Challenge.

Combat Tactic - Combat Challenge
In combat it is dangerous to ignore the fighter's presence.
Benefit: Any target you attack with a weapon whether it hits or misses, can have a tactical point spent to mark the target. The mark lasts until end of your next turn. Marked target takes disadvantage to all attacks that don't include you as the target. A creature can only be subject to one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.   

I only have Combat Challenge done but other tactics can be added.
Tell me what you think of this class feature.
Ok, I've been watching a few of your posts and they are all about bringing stuff back from 4e or translating it over from 4e. If you like those mechanics, shouldn't you be playing 4e? lol. Remember the goal of a "new" edition is "new" things, not old things. If things worked in another version, draw upon that sure. But use it to make new and even more exciting mechanics rather than just bringing over the old ones.

To answer the topic, I really don't see how this isn't handled by the protector fighting style already in place. TBH I always found marking to be kind of a hassle, especially if there was more than 1 defender. I can't count the number of times my players said "Oh wait! I had that enemy marked!" and would want me to backtrack. If the mark was more of a semi permanent thing, like it didn't change targets or fade every round or every other round, I could see it working out. But all in all, I think the protector fighter is a fine start to a tanky style fighter.
My two copper.
this looks like an over-complicated way to achieve a very boring effect.

also, disadvantage is a really bad effect to give this. if you mark anything with the rage trait, they're just going to shrug and attack whoever they were going to anyway with a chance for +5 damage. it should just stay a -2, at least that way it can stack with other effects.

fighters in 5e aren't going to all be dedicated 'defenders' any more either, so this won't even be useful enough to justify giving it to all fighters as a class feature.
If it were desirable to bring this mechanic back (which I am neutral on) - it would not be a good idea to create an entirely new mechanic to regulate it.


If 'marking' were going to be a thing in 5N, it obviously should be a combat manuever triggered by spending one of the fighter's expertise dice.  (The OP reads as if the poster is unaware of the existence of the current fighter manuevers.  Hopefully that is not the case.)


And, as noted, disadvantage is a very powerful penalty.   If it is intended to apply to multiple attackers, it is too powerful (just as Shield of Faith was downgraded). 

If the mark is (as I think it probably should be) more focused - the figther marks a single target - disadvantage probably isn't too severe a penalty.  The character is, essentially, trading the ability to do 4.5 points of damage for the effect so it ought to be a worthwhile penalty.

But that is what playtesting is for - if they decide to add a 'marking' manuever.

Carl
I don't really care if they bring back the "Come at me, Bro!!" ability in Next. Though I wouldn't mind some kind of taunting ability that gives a reason, mechanically speaking, for the monsters to focus on the tin cans carrying garbage can lids and big sticks.
But if it doesn't make the muster than...ehh. I won't be heartbroken. 
If you like those mechanics, shouldn't you be playing 4e? lol. Remember the goal of a "new" edition is "new" things, not old things.


"If people like Vancian Wizard, they should go back to 3.x."

"If people want THAC0, they should go back to 2nd ed."

Simply telling people they should go play another game is not a helpful thing to say for a game who's goal is pretty much "The D&D for everyone."

If things worked in another version, draw upon that sure.


And marking was something very liked in 4e. While it shouldn't be exactly how it was in 4e, and I think OP's version Disadvantage bit is a little too strong, not putting it into the game period wouldn't be a wise idea. Before 4e, as far as I've been told from here and people irl who played pre-4e editions, Fighters have always been the ideal "defender" character and yet have never had a decent way of actually protecting their teammates outside of "Roleplay it and hope the DM is in a good mood today" or "EVERYONE INTO THE HALLWAY."

Marking was something that helped out quite a bit, and something similar should make it's way into 5e at some point.
If you like those mechanics, shouldn't you be playing 4e? lol. Remember the goal of a "new" edition is "new" things, not old things.


"If people like Vancian Wizard, they should go back to 3.x."

"If people want THAC0, they should go back to 2nd ed."

Simply telling people they should go play another game is not a helpful thing to say for a game who's goal is pretty much "The D&D for everyone."

If things worked in another version, draw upon that sure.


And marking was something very liked in 4e. While it shouldn't be exactly how it was in 4e, and I think OP's version Disadvantage bit is a little too strong, not putting it into the game period wouldn't be a wise idea. Before 4e, as far as I've been told from here and people irl who played pre-4e editions, Fighters have always been the ideal "defender" character and yet have never had a decent way of actually protecting their teammates outside of "Roleplay it and hope the DM is in a good mood today" or "EVERYONE INTO THE HALLWAY."

Marking was something that helped out quite a bit, and something similar should make it's way into 5e at some point.


All I'm trying to say is that people are all over the forums chanting "Bring this back!", but the point is that it's a new edition. If I really wanted to play a fighter with 4th edition mechanics, I would go play 4th edition. I'm not saying we shouldn't learn from the past and use some of those lessons in 5e. But just recycling old mechanics is boring and uncreative. Currently we have this issue already in 5e with the Wizard spellcasting system. But see how many people are up in arms against it? Sure it's the "DnD for everyone", but that doesn't mean its just a ramshamble of mechanics from the different editions put together.

Also, I'm not telling him not to play 5e. He's as welcome as anyone. I am a firm believer that RPGs don't be come obsolete once a new edition is out. I still play 3rd edition shadowrun, 2e and 3e dnd, BESM 2nd, etc. If you really like the mechanics of a particular edition, why not just play that? My view on it anyway.

Finally yes, older editions of DnD have had their problems making a tank like character, but so far 5e has done a wonderful job without marking. In fact many people think they did too good a job and the Defender Fighter is just plain too good
My two copper.
No marks in Next, please. They're annoying to track, and they contribute to the sluggish combat pacing that was in 4e. I also find that they make absolutely no sense in context to how the fight should actually be playing out. What HAPPENS when you mark someone? WHY would they take disadvantage to everything? What did you do to them to cause that? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

"If people like Vancian Wizard, they should go back to 3.x."

"If people want THAC0, they should go back to 2nd ed."



You can still get 4th edition literature in shops. You can't get 2nd edition stuff at all anymore, unless you search for it on Ebay.

You're right, however, in that simply saying "you can play an older version" isn't really a valid argument - it would be if the older versions were still in print, but eventually they stop printing them, and stop making new modules for them. I prefer 2nd edition, and I would still play that if I could, but I can't get any of its material anymore unless I go hunting for it on Ebay. 3rd is on the way out, and eventually 4th will follow.

And marking was something very liked in 4e.



Well I didn't like it, so there.   I hate things that have magic or magic-like effects being attributed to non-magical characters. Marking is one such effect.

Fighter: "I have the power to magically force you to attack me, somehow!"
Monster: "But I want to hit the caster...can't....get....sword....up!"

Fighters get expertise dice to do extra damage. Guardian fighters can also defend other people. Plus they can always bullrush the enemy out of the way. I think fighters get enough to help them protect other part members.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!


Fighter: "I have the power to magically force you to attack me, somehow!"
Monster: "But I want to hit the caster...can't....get....sword....up!"



Because defensive lines and supressive fire don't mean anything in real life right?  

Also, marks work more like


Fighter: "I shove my sword in your face and keep you busy with my impessive sword work"
Monster: "I shouldnt let my guard down around this guy or he's going to attack me."

Marks don't force enemies to fight the fighter, it just makes fighting him more appealing than getting stabbed for going else where.


And all other classes that have marks either magical or are doing something with similar favlour.  
I agree with Janx_14's interpretation on how marking works and I'm not too fond of how Jenks writes off on thposter wanting to bring back things in 4E that he liked. There are many things in 4e I hated and many things that I liked. Marking being one of the things I liked.

Marking made the fighter "threatening" he made it that if his Marked target turned his back on the fighter and tried to hit an ally the fighter will strike him down for doing so. You don't need to have the attack penalty to make marking what it is. Remember that "marking" in 4E was really JUST the attack penalty. Fighters got additional bonuses from marking that other classes did not get just as Paladins and Swordmages got thier own special mark power.

I say just keep marking simple. The fighter... and only the fighter can only mark one target. And the penalty to not attack the fighter should be simple and significant. Now marking should also be an "Option" in 5E not the staple. Options are always good. Mandatory powers or powers that are too good not to take are bad.
I loved the fighters marking in 4th but i dont see it coming back in 5th. I havent seen any curses for the warlock either( wich I thought was the coolest thing about them).

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.



Fighter: "I have the power to magically force you to attack me, somehow!"
Monster: "But I want to hit the caster...can't....get....sword....up!"



Because defensive lines and supressive fire don't mean anything in real life right?  

Also, marks work more like


Fighter: "I shove my sword in your face and keep you busy with my impessive sword work"
Monster: "I shouldnt let my guard down around this guy or he's going to attack me."

Marks don't force enemies to fight the fighter, it just makes fighting him more appealing than getting stabbed for going else where.


And all other classes that have marks either magical or are doing something with similar favlour.  




at this point it's just a contextualization debate, and the argument is lost.

"it's this way!"
"nu-uh, it's this way!"
I agree with Janx_14's interpretation on how marking works and I'm not too fond of how Jenks writes off on thposter wanting to bring back things in 4E that he liked. There are many things in 4e I hated and many things that I liked. Marking being one of the things I liked.

Marking made the fighter "threatening" he made it that if his Marked target turned his back on the fighter and tried to hit an ally the fighter will strike him down for doing so. You don't need to have the attack penalty to make marking what it is. Remember that "marking" in 4E was really JUST the attack penalty. Fighters got additional bonuses from marking that other classes did not get just as Paladins and Swordmages got thier own special mark power.

I say just keep marking simple. The fighter... and only the fighter can only mark one target. And the penalty to not attack the fighter should be simple and significant. Now marking should also be an "Option" in 5E not the staple. Options are always good. Mandatory powers or powers that are too good not to take are bad.



It could be something as simple like when you make an attack, you can give up a one of your combat surperiority dice. Until the start of your next turn, if the target makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target, you can make an attack against the target with advantage as a reaction.
Gods, no - I beg of you, no marking what so ever! This was one of the things that made my players lose interest in D&D, and I had to bring them back to 3.5. I play with a grid, and marking became an artificial thing that was bothersome to keep track of and made it all feel like a board game. I'll cry if marking returns! I just so much want this edition to be great!
with guardian, i honestly don't see the need for marking.

marking is just one more "status" to keep track of, and though i love 4e to death, there was WAY too much to keep track of during combat with marks, save ends, recharge rates, bloodied abilities and nifty little special minors abilities.
with guardian, i honestly don't see the need for marking.

marking is just one more "status" to keep track of, and though i love 4e to death, there was WAY too much to keep track of during combat with marks, save ends, recharge rates, bloodied abilities and nifty little special minors abilities.


This! This is the core of my argument. With the Protector already in place, I don't see the need for this. People are already claiming that it is too powerful as it is. 

Also, maybe it's just me that wants a new edition to be new. I dunno. I don't just want another edition of same stuff. I already own 300 bucks in 4e books, I don't want to just buy them again If I wanted to play 4e, I'd play 4e. I want 5e to be 5e, not 4e+. Again, maybe I'm alone in this. 
My two copper.


Fighter: "I have the power to magically force you to attack me, somehow!"
Monster: "But I want to hit the caster...can't....get....sword....up!"



Because defensive lines and supressive fire don't mean anything in real life right?  

Also, marks work more like


Fighter: "I shove my sword in your face and keep you busy with my impessive sword work"
Monster: "I shouldnt let my guard down around this guy or he's going to attack me."

Marks don't force enemies to fight the fighter, it just makes fighting him more appealing than getting stabbed for going else where.


And all other classes that have marks either magical or are doing something with similar favlour.  




at this point it's just a contextualization debate, and the argument is lost.

"it's this way!"
"nu-uh, it's this way!"


Not really. Ranger is awkwardly forcing marking into a specific fluff, then throwing a fit because it doens't make sense.

Marking is NOT an inherantly magic ability. Marking does NOT force the enemy to attack the marker. Things similar to Marking can, and DO happen in real life, movies, etc.

For example, someone is mugging a person at gunpoint. And a cop(let's assume he happened to be around) pulls out his gun and tells him to drop it, pointing it intently at him. The mugger is now "marked." Absolutely nothing is PREVENTING him from not doing what the cop said, but not doing so can lead to consequences for his action.

Or in a movie, I forget what it's called, where there's a gun on the floor and a man holding a sword to the two other guys. One attempts to go for the gun, and the guy with the sword tells him "Go on, go get it, i dare ya"(or something along those lines). Again, nothing is PREVENTING him from going ahead and ignoring the guy, but it WILL leave him open for a potentially hefty punishment attack.

Or hell, surpressing fire as said earlier. Shooting to keep the other enemies down while their allies move into a better spot. The enemies are very free to get up and go shoot the people moving, but they could leave themselves open to the hail of gunfire currently flying at them.

Insisting the marking mechanic is a strictly magical gfeature for the nonmagical Fighter is just ridiculous.
Marking or a similar mechanic should be an option in 5th because this is supposed to be an edition to unite all DnD players. Now having said that, it should not be tied to class. It should be a specialty without a class restriction. Heck maybe even multiple specialties with a marking mechanic in a module. One for a melee character, one for a ranged character and one for a caster.

  For those of you that hate the "marking" mechanic, how do you feel about defender auras?

Not really. Ranger is awkwardly forcing marking into a specific fluff, then throwing a fit because it doens't make sense.

Marking is NOT an inherantly magic ability. Marking does NOT force the enemy to attack the marker. Things similar to Marking can, and DO happen in real life, movies, etc.

For example, someone is mugging a person at gunpoint. And a cop(let's assume he happened to be around) pulls out his gun and tells him to drop it, pointing it intently at him. The mugger is now "marked." Absolutely nothing is PREVENTING him from not doing what the cop said, but not doing so can lead to consequences for his action.

Or in a movie, I forget what it's called, where there's a gun on the floor and a man holding a sword to the two other guys. One attempts to go for the gun, and the guy with the sword tells him "Go on, go get it, i dare ya"(or something along those lines). Again, nothing is PREVENTING him from going ahead and ignoring the guy, but it WILL leave him open for a potentially hefty punishment attack.

Or hell, surpressing fire as said earlier. Shooting to keep the other enemies down while their allies move into a better spot. The enemies are very free to get up and go shoot the people moving, but they could leave themselves open to the hail of gunfire currently flying at them.

Insisting the marking mechanic is a strictly magical gfeature for the nonmagical Fighter is just ridiculous.



All of these things can be achieved without the use of marking. Be it roleplaying, intimidation checks, anything. You don't need marking for any of that. The only kind of marking that really makes sense to me is a Warlock's curse in 4e, but that may just be because I played World of Warcraft, and Warlocks have similar 'marks' in that, so it's just sort of ingrained in my head.

Point is, the effects of marking can be achieved in a much more believable way by a variety of other methods without the actual mechanic of it.

Be it roleplaying


This falls under the "describe it pretty and hope the DM is in a good mood." They need to have some way of defending without needing to play "DM May I?" It doesn't have to be Marking, but it's been the best solution I've seen thus far.

intimidation checks,


Could work, but you don't neccesarily have to be intimidating to Mark someone, just make it clear to them that if they drop their guard for even a second, you're going to take advantage of it.

The only kind of marking that really makes sense to me is a Warlock's curse in 4e, but that may just be because I played World of Warcraft, and Warlocks have similar 'marks' in that, so it's just sort of ingrained in my head.


Minor nitpick:Warlock's Curse isn't a Mark, just a curse the Warlocks place on the enemy to let them hurt them more. It's not really a Mark that I'm referring to, sicne it's not really a "DO this and you'll pay." kind of thing, just a "You're already dead." kind of thing.

Point is, the effects of marking can be achieved in a much more believable way by a variety of other methods without the actual mechanic of it.


Real world military isn't believable?
A real world hol-up isn't believable?
Hell, marks even happen in BASKETBALL.

How many real-world examples do you need before it starts being "believable?"
Mark = protect + jab. Next packet is October right? And we are supposed to see progression to level 10? Maybe something like a mark will appear later in the progression for Protectors.


Fighter: "I have the power to magically force you to attack me, somehow!"
Monster: "But I want to hit the caster...can't....get....sword....up!"



Because defensive lines and supressive fire don't mean anything in real life right?  

Also, marks work more like


Fighter: "I shove my sword in your face and keep you busy with my impessive sword work"
Monster: "I shouldnt let my guard down around this guy or he's going to attack me."

Marks don't force enemies to fight the fighter, it just makes fighting him more appealing than getting stabbed for going else where.


And all other classes that have marks either magical or are doing something with similar favlour.  




at this point it's just a contextualization debate, and the argument is lost.

"it's this way!"
"nu-uh, it's this way!"


Not really. Ranger is awkwardly forcing marking into a specific fluff, then throwing a fit because it doens't make sense.

Marking is NOT an inherantly magic ability. Marking does NOT force the enemy to attack the marker. Things similar to Marking can, and DO happen in real life, movies, etc.

For example, someone is mugging a person at gunpoint. And a cop(let's assume he happened to be around) pulls out his gun and tells him to drop it, pointing it intently at him. The mugger is now "marked." Absolutely nothing is PREVENTING him from not doing what the cop said, but not doing so can lead to consequences for his action.

Or in a movie, I forget what it's called, where there's a gun on the floor and a man holding a sword to the two other guys. One attempts to go for the gun, and the guy with the sword tells him "Go on, go get it, i dare ya"(or something along those lines). Again, nothing is PREVENTING him from going ahead and ignoring the guy, but it WILL leave him open for a potentially hefty punishment attack.

Or hell, surpressing fire as said earlier. Shooting to keep the other enemies down while their allies move into a better spot. The enemies are very free to get up and go shoot the people moving, but they could leave themselves open to the hail of gunfire currently flying at them.

Insisting the marking mechanic is a strictly magical gfeature for the nonmagical Fighter is just ridiculous.



unless the rulebook explicitly states this, it is not fact, only your interpretation.

arguing interpretation is like arguing preference, it's a worthless and silly endevor.

What HAPPENS when you mark someone?  


It varies by the marker... a fighters mark is very physical.
My fighter harrases interfering with there attacks and bothers the enemy with many relatively obvious attacks that have to be addressed, he broadcasts his intent . He times his attacks less as to when you seem most vulnerable but more to interfere with any attempts to withdraw from him or attack his allies after a few moments you are certain he just wont stop coming and if you run you figure he is probably behind you. Marking someone usually represents you focusing your attention on them.. My fighter kicked dust and rocks and things at the enemy just when they were attacking if they tried to get out of reach or lobbed a nearby bottle (not a weapon attack just interference).   

A rogue doesnt broadcast where he is attacking or get your attention he is paying attention to openings you leave and hunting for that special perfect one the two together synergize.

The protect maneuver lets me do some real defender feel in 5e I like it.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I don't much care for rules that have little basis in fact. I can't see how someone could possibly do anything that would affect how an enemy on the battle field by making him attack me or suffer some arbitrary penalty if he doesn't.

Sorry, no.

If by some quirk of insanity this becomes part of the game it really belongs in a corner of some obscure rules suplement in the far distant future.

Too bad the devs like the idea so much that they seem to be glueing it or something similar to all of the monsters they have toyed with since this whole thing started. 

As for all of these 4e isms, some of us don't play 4e, don't much care for 4e, and don't want next to even remotely resemble 4e. It's kind of why they are trying to lure those of us who don't play D&D back into the fold. If you really want Next to fail just keep insisting on making it a 4e clone. 


Fighter: "I have the power to magically force you to attack me, somehow!"
Monster: "But I want to hit the caster...can't....get....sword....up!"



Because defensive lines and supressive fire don't mean anything in real life right?  

Also, marks work more like


Fighter: "I shove my sword in your face and keep you busy with my impessive sword work"
Monster: "I shouldnt let my guard down around this guy or he's going to attack me."

Marks don't force enemies to fight the fighter, it just makes fighting him more appealing than getting stabbed for going else where.


And all other classes that have marks either magical or are doing something with similar favlour.  




at this point it's just a contextualization debate, and the argument is lost.

"it's this way!"
"nu-uh, it's this way!"


Not really. Ranger is awkwardly forcing marking into a specific fluff, then throwing a fit because it doens't make sense.

Marking is NOT an inherantly magic ability. Marking does NOT force the enemy to attack the marker. Things similar to Marking can, and DO happen in real life, movies, etc.

For example, someone is mugging a person at gunpoint. And a cop(let's assume he happened to be around) pulls out his gun and tells him to drop it, pointing it intently at him. The mugger is now "marked." Absolutely nothing is PREVENTING him from not doing what the cop said, but not doing so can lead to consequences for his action.

Or in a movie, I forget what it's called, where there's a gun on the floor and a man holding a sword to the two other guys. One attempts to go for the gun, and the guy with the sword tells him "Go on, go get it, i dare ya"(or something along those lines). Again, nothing is PREVENTING him from going ahead and ignoring the guy, but it WILL leave him open for a potentially hefty punishment attack.

Or hell, surpressing fire as said earlier. Shooting to keep the other enemies down while their allies move into a better spot. The enemies are very free to get up and go shoot the people moving, but they could leave themselves open to the hail of gunfire currently flying at them.

Insisting the marking mechanic is a strictly magical gfeature for the nonmagical Fighter is just ridiculous.



So you need this rule to force your DM's to let you play the way you want?
 

So you need this rule to force your DM's to let you play the way you want?


Where did you get force out of this?  the monsters and the dms choices are influenced by cost benefit analysis the fighter is allowed to put a finger on the scales of the cost. 

In fact the fighter tends to create a delicious damned if you do damned if you dont element to the game play. So the choices are more interesting as a DM.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Be it roleplaying


This falls under the "describe it pretty and hope the DM is in a good mood." They need to have some way of defending without needing to play "DM May I?" It doesn't have to be Marking, but it's been the best solution I've seen thus far.

intimidation checks,


Could work, but you don't neccesarily have to be intimidating to Mark someone, just make it clear to them that if they drop their guard for even a second, you're going to take advantage of it.

The only kind of marking that really makes sense to me is a Warlock's curse in 4e, but that may just be because I played World of Warcraft, and Warlocks have similar 'marks' in that, so it's just sort of ingrained in my head.


Minor nitpick:Warlock's Curse isn't a Mark, just a curse the Warlocks place on the enemy to let them hurt them more. It's not really a Mark that I'm referring to, sicne it's not really a "DO this and you'll pay." kind of thing, just a "You're already dead." kind of thing.

Point is, the effects of marking can be achieved in a much more believable way by a variety of other methods without the actual mechanic of it.


Real world military isn't believable?
A real world hol-up isn't believable?
Hell, marks even happen in BASKETBALL.

How many real-world examples do you need before it starts being "believable?"



see the part marked in bold..
I don't much care for rules that have little basis in fact. I can't see how someone could possibly do anything that would affect how an enemy on the battle field by making him attack me or suffer some arbitrary penalty if he doesn't.

Sorry, no.

If by some quirk of insanity this becomes part of the game it really belongs in a corner of some obscure rules suplement in the far distant future.

Too bad the devs like the idea so much that they seem to be glueing it or something similar to all of the monsters they have toyed with since this whole thing started. 

As for all of these 4e isms, some of us don't play 4e, don't much care for 4e, and don't want next to even remotely resemble 4e. It's kind of why they are trying to lure those of us who don't play D&D back into the fold. If you really want Next to fail just keep insisting on making it a 4e clone. 



There are a lot of things I probably should quote, but this comment stood out. First of all, the section I've underlined makes me incredibly sad. From your comments Tlantl I assume you are an older gentleman, yet here we have the exact same logic used by whiny 14 year olds about why the new Halo 4 video game is bad (They claim the company is trying to woo newer players by making it exactly like Call of Duty, one of the most popular yet despised games in the industry). Please understand that no one expects 5e will be a clone of 4e, that will not happen. Yet, despite claims to the contrary, 4e did some things right. Marking was one of them, and if we can find a way to include it into the scheme of 5e it might make 5e better. Just because you hate 4e doesn't mean they have nothing to offer, after all it does have a following of loyal fans.

As to how marking works, I can see the debate that an intimidation check might achieve the same result of having the monster attack the fighter, or giving him a penalty to attack other characters. What it will not do however, is the one thing that makes marking worthwhile, following through on the threat. You can intimidate all you want, you can ready actions or do whatever other clever scheme you can come up with, but for marking to be an actual threat instead of a perceived one the fighter has to follow through and attack the target.

I like the idea of this being a speciality, either simlir to or an expansion of the Guardian specialty. A Thug Rogue could mark someone, and it fits rather well. A wizard marking is odd, but interesting if the player could pull it off. In the end though, this was a great mechanic to allow players to legitimately control enemy combatants, and of course the blade cuts both ways, players could get marked by an enemy leading to interesting choices.

Also, I might suggest a mark lasting until the creature is killed, maybe allowing the player to spend a reaction or something else small to cancel it if he feels the need to move on to a different creature. This way we have less bookkeeping and it makes more sense.

Finally, to respond to the bolded part of the quote above... read some of the other posts. The cop example is near perfect. You get up in the opponent's face, make it obvious you are the one they will be dealing with, and punishing them if "their attention wanders" with a quick jab or something similiar. That is all marking is to me, making sure you are right there whenever they turn around and that they have a hard time focusing on anyone else.



4e did some things right. Marking was one of them.





Opinion. Marking appears to be a largly divided issue. Saying that they "did it right" would imply you're invalidating everyones opinion (such as my own) that marking isn't needed and would be a supplmentary rule when the 5e core is supposed to be slim and open. 

On a somewhat similar matter, I don't think Mob Tactics should operate as a mark, either. 
Marking - as a lasting 'thing' that is done to the creature which affects its actions is a bad idea. Not because it is a 4E-ism. 4E did some things right and some things wrong. But marking is one of the things it did wrong - which is why the eliminated it as a mechanism in Essentials.


The last thing this game needs is to require the DM or players to track states such as marked.  That was one of the things that 4E did wrong. And one of the best fixes they did to the game was to get rid of these fiddly marks, curses, quarrys, etc. in the essentials characters.

They are annoying and they slow down the game.

If they wanted to put in something like the Defender Aura - I wouldn't hate it.  I don't think it is necessary or fits with the direction they are taking the game.  But at least it wouldn't be an annoying waste of the players time like marking.


If you want something akin to a mark - it ought to be a part of the fighter's combat expertise.  Perhaps a manuever which works as follows:  You spend one expertise die.  Until the start of your next turn, if an adjacent creature moves or makes an attack that does not include you as the target, you can apply your expertise die as damage to that target.


But a mark, as in 4E PHB classes - please, NO.


Carl
@Chaosmancer

specificly to your last statment... 

That only works if you look at every part of the game as some abstract concept and not a solid or ridgidly defined concept. Fans of 4E are in general much more in favor of a maleable game where they can restructure the game or the basic game concepts. Fans of older editions that do not like 4E do not in general like that method of play nor that style of game design. As such a non-fan of 4E does not like the "come at me bro" abilities of the 4E fighter, nor the 4E marking a target.
@Chaosmancer

specificly to your last statment... 

That only works if you look at every part of the game as some abstract concept and not a solid or ridgidly defined concept. Fans of 4E are in general much more in favor of a maleable game where they can restructure the game or the basic game concepts. Fans of older editions that do not like 4E do not in general like that method of play nor that style of game design. As such a non-fan of 4E does not like the "come at me bro" abilities of the 4E fighter, nor the 4E marking a target.



For example - I don't like the 4e mark (in addition to the fact that it's fiddly and annoying) because it is something done to the opponent.  This makes little sense (and in no way fits with any of the descriptions of how marks work that people come up with).  It is something done to the creature, which persists despite anything happening in the fiction of the game.  

For example, someone is mugging a person at gunpoint. And a cop(let's assume he happened to be around) pulls out his gun and tells him to drop it, pointing it intently at him. The mugger is now "marked." Absolutely nothing is PREVENTING him from not doing what the cop said, but not doing so can lead to consequences for his action.



And yet - if something comes between the mugger and the cop so that the cop can no longer shoot the mugger, or the cop drops his gun and the mugger is still marked and suffers negative effects if he doesn't attack the cop.


Or in a movie, I forget what it's called, where there's a gun on the floor and a man holding a sword to the two other guys. One attempts to go for the gun, and the guy with the sword tells him "Go on, go get it, i dare ya"(or something along those lines). Again, nothing is PREVENTING him from going ahead and ignoring the guy, but it WILL leave him open for a potentially hefty punishment attack.


And yet - if the third ally comes up from behind him, attacks him - drawing his attention away from the two of them they are still marked and unable to take action without suffering the consequences of the mark.


Or hell, surpressing fire as said earlier. Shooting to keep the other enemies down while their allies move into a better spot. The enemies are very free to get up and go shoot the people moving, but they could leave themselves open to the hail of gunfire currently flying at them.


And when they run out of bullets, the enemies are still at a penalty because the mark represents something that was done to them, not a potential on the part of the enemies to attack.

THat is the basic, dissociative mechanic, problem with Marks.  They are not something the fighter can do because of their training.  They are something the fighter does to the opponent and that something has no real explanation in the fiction of the game (outside of psychological attacks that piss the target off so much they feel a strong desire to attack the fighter - and that only works in certain specific cases).

[Beside which - all three of the above examples are actually examples of held actions - not marks.]

But - as I noted before - the real reason why marks don't belong in 4E is because they are fiddly annoying dissociative mechanics which do not fit  with the goal of faster combats in 5N.


Carl
TIL: Highly trained fighters cannot for the life of them keep an enemy at bay by harassing and directly engaging with him.

God, people, the reality some of you life in is so utterly ridiculous...



A highly trained fighter on an open plain has no tools at his disposal to disallow an enemy passage around him without also giving up *significant* ground or opening himself up to some nasty jabs. And in a narrow hallway, sure it's easy to keep people from getting past you - and it's easy in the game too.
Be it roleplaying


This falls under the "describe it pretty and hope the DM is in a good mood." They need to have some way of defending without needing to play "DM May I?" It doesn't have to be Marking, but it's been the best solution I've seen thus far.


see the part marked in bold..


Ok....what about it?
What HAPPENS when you mark someone?  




Seriously, though, with Parry and Protect and probably even better abilities ahead, is Marking that necessary? You have a guy that is blocking your damage. That screams "Take it down first," to me. Even if they have the highest AC, I would probably target the guy stopping my damage first and enmasse.
Ok, I've been watching a few of your posts and they are all about bringing stuff back from 4e or translating it over from 4e. If you like those mechanics, shouldn't you be playing 4e? lol. Remember the goal of a "new" edition is "new" things, not old things. If things worked in another version, draw upon that sure. But use it to make new and even more exciting mechanics rather than just bringing over the old ones.


Quite the contrary. This edition seems to be fixated on old mechanics and stereotypes.

Seriously, they are trying to cram rules in from every previous edition to get everyone to like it.

Why would you tell him to just keep playing 4th edition when the whole point of Next is that the stuff he likes will be in it?


Marking does NOT force the enemy to attack the marker.



No, but it does make attacks against anything that isn't the marker more difficult.

For example, someone is mugging a person at gunpoint. And a cop(let's assume he happened to be around) pulls out his gun and tells him to drop it, pointing it intently at him. The mugger is now "marked." Absolutely nothing is PREVENTING him from not doing what the cop said, but not doing so can lead to consequences for his action.



And the mugger is somehow less able to shoot straight because of this? No. The mugger can still attack the victim, only he'll be attacked in return. There is no "mark" in place.

Or in a movie, I forget what it's called, where there's a gun on the floor and a man holding a sword to the two other guys. One attempts to go for the gun, and the guy with the sword tells him "Go on, go get it, i dare ya"(or something along those lines). Again, nothing is PREVENTING him from going ahead and ignoring the guy, but it WILL leave him open for a potentially hefty punishment attack.



And the fact that he's unarmed, and attempting to pick up a weapon in the other guy's threatened area will provoke an opportunity attack, doesn't account for this at all? Again, this isn't a "mark". It's a man with a weapon placing himself so that the unarmed person can't get his weapon.

Or hell, surpressing fire as said earlier. Shooting to keep the other enemies down while their allies move into a better spot. The enemies are very free to get up and go shoot the people moving, but they could leave themselves open to the hail of gunfire currently flying at them.



A mark would mean that the people being surpressed are able to shoot at the people doing the surpressing without any problem, but as soon as they shoot at someone else, their sights mist up.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
You know what a "Mark" is its the stupid glowy floating crosshair that is put over a monsters head. It is a "magical" game effect. It applies a effect that has no link to what it going on in the game. It can not be linked to any realistic style of game play in any way that passes basic logic tests.

That is what a "fighters mark" is.
I didn't really care for the marking mechanic in 4e, myself. It felt kind of "gamey" and it was a pain to deal with in practice (for me). So I would be happy if it did not come back in Next.
Would it be better if it was simply an expansion of the Guardian specialty, like an abilty gained at level 7? And I don't remember much about Essentials (I only played it once as a one-shot) but I think the aura's might have been a closer mechanic to what makes sense... of course, I can't seem to recall any details. I'll try and find that character sheet when I get home tonight