|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:25AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2010
|
I think all classes should be able to achieve high AC, high HP, high damage, high attack, etc. I see no reason to design the classes like the game Janken.
Thing is, this is bad, because this makes all the classes the same.
No, it means that all classes can achieve the same level of greatness, but differ in the methods they employ to achieve that greatness. A fighter in full plate armor isn't the same as a wizard with a mirror image spell. The math on the mirror image spell might workout to be the same chance to hit as the fighter in full plate, but the differnce is unmistakable.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:27AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
This is the classic debate based on metagame dissonance. Marking is very metagamey. I never had a problem with a fighter hitting anyone he was adjacent to that tried to attack someone else. He is the master of combat and as such he is a constant threat. I disliked giving the other guy a -2 on his attack. Instead I'd give the fighter a +2 on his attack against anyone who attacks someone besides the fighter.
I like ganging up rules in general.
My solution solves the question asked about teleport above. The second you no longer threaten someone with a melee attack you get no bonus.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:01AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
This is the classic debate based on metagame dissonance. Marking is very metagamey.
I stopped reading here.
Simply put, it's not metagaming for someone to threaten someone else if the other person shifts his attention elsewhere for more than a split second.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:05AM
#54
|
|
|
While I do not personally see marking as metagamey, I think the defender aura from essentials is a better mechanic to represent "marking". Basically, anyone near the fighter has a penalty to attacks not directed at the fighter as he is able to get in the way of his opponents. Then, if the foe does go for an ally, the fighter takes this advantage of this opening and strikes.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:06AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2011
|
I never understood the problem with marking. It's a sense of threat. It doesn't force them to attack you, it's not "mind control", it's an aggressive or threatening presence. Sure, you can ignore the fighter and attack the wizard if you realize the latter is a bigger threat - but ignoring the fighter should never be a good idea. At the very least, even without punishment, a -2 penalty to attack represents the awareness of the fighter as a consideration. It's the difference between "these are targets, I pick that one and attack it" - and "these are targets, this is my goal, and oh crap there's the fighter as well better be a little careful".
... congratulations, Monkeygentleman.
You won the unwinnable.
| monkeygentleman, you are the worst thing to happen to the CharOp forums since Mearls took over WotC.
|
Spoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 10:06AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
While I do not personally see marking as metagamey, I think the defender aura from essentials is a better mechanic to represent "marking". Basically, anyone near the fighter has a penalty to attacks not directed at the fighter as he is able to get in the way of his opponents. Then, if the foe does go for an ally, the fighter takes this advantage of this opening and strikes.
I could definetly go for this as the core "defending" Fighter.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 11:21AM
#57
|
|
|
I didn't particularly care for the 4E Fighters mark... however, I loved the rest of the combat superiority package.
I would have preffered more rattling than marking, honestly, but that's just me.
From what I have seen thus far, the Guardian Theme feats do a passing good job of exploring rough drafts of protection mechanics that don't challenge as many supsensions of disbelief. Before it gets rolling, I do understand how a Fighter's mark works in 4E and what it is supposed to represent. However, it is a point of some contention and was not my personal favourite.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
|
|
|
