|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 1:35AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Marking is a way players assert control over the battlefield, its a chance for a player to say "screw you dm" I mean this affectionately since I dm'd alot of 4e. Luckily on the marking side I was the one making the ultimate defender and marking as many enemies as I could. Many people complained about GM's ignoring the mark, well I wouldn't give the gm a good option of doing that. My defenders made sure to make sure the DM payed a helfty price for not attacking me (usually in the form of massive damage or immobilization), and made them feel bad when they did attack me (the self healing on a dwarf fighter was pretty obscene).
Marking made 4e a chess match, some people luved it, others hated it. I don't feel most of the community could get behind 4e Fighter marking (hard for it to make sense). But they could do Paladin (Swordmage or Psychic) marking. This would allow players of 4e to still have a true defender.
Its an interesting discussion if we really want a 4e style defender in 5e. I'm just saying the option is there an It's Magic (or Psychic).
About the first sentence i completely agree,but exactly for that reason i see marking as a rule for a full fledged grid module,and not having much sense in TOM imo.
About the second sentence, i found marking another complexity layer who slowed down play for various reasons. In my old group just a player liked it, the most tactic-inclined player..the other not much so.
Given the above, i'd say that marks are a useful addition to the game if you have a group who love tactical play, so imo marks are ok as an optional rule in the grid module.
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 1:48AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Marking is a way players assert control over the battlefield,
About the first sentence i completely agree,but exactly for that reason i see marking as a rule for a full fledged grid module,and not having much sense in TOM imo.
Really? Marking isn't dependant on positioning, really, not at all. For some punishment mechanics, you need to know whether you're in swording range of a guy. You know, the same stuff you need to know to sword him without a mark.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 1:59AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Yeah, but that is better visualized and strategically relevant with a grid, otherwise is just another condition we have to track imo.
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 2:07AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Yeah, but that is better visualized and strategically relevant with a grid, otherwise is just another condition we have to track imo.
No, it's really not. There are a few things you have to know with the current Fighter's Combat Challenge mechanics.
1: is the enemy currently in swording range? Answer: almost certainly yes, as the Fighter has just tried to sword them.
2: Has the enemy tried to attack someone who isn't the Fighter? This requires no grid, at all.
3: Has the enemy tried to move? Both shifts and regular moves are punished with Combat Challenge. We don't need to know WHERE they moved, or how much, just that they DID. It requires NO GRID, AT ALL.
None of this requires a Grid, to visualize it or to make strategies off it. At all.
I'm starting to think, "But hey, this needs a Grid!" is just your personal way of saying, "But I don't like this thing!" and has nothing to do with whether something actually needs a grid.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 2:13AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Let's agree to disagree then  Everyone is entitled to his opinions,and i respect yours. About the liking/disliking,i consider myself a straightforward person and if i didn't like it, i'd just write that on my post. Actually i'm neutral about the topic,believing has his merits in a specific context. Nothing more or less than that.
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 2:17AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
Let's agree to disagree then
Everyone is entitled to his opinions,and i respect yours.
About the liking/disliking,i consider myself a straightforward person and if i didn't like it, i'd just write that on my post.
Actually i'm neutral about the topic,believing has his merits in a specific context.
Nothing more or less than that.
I want to believe that, but honestly, no. I've given evidence that a Fighter's Combat Challenge, in 4e, does not rely on a grid. If you want to disagree, give me a solid argument that it does rely on, or at least is significantly improved by, a grid. Agree to disagree is a state I reserve for when both sides have given solid, inarguable reason for their position, or at least when someone has been so stubborn, for so long, that I despair of ever talking to them.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 2:25AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
What about the idea of having a 4e style defender in 5e? How do the playtesters feel about the possibility of having a defenders mark. Is this too much like wow tanks for us, or is it ok, since... It's Magic.
I would like to see it, at least as an option (module?). It makes the most sense, IMO, for something like a Battlemind/Psychic Warrior who would LITERALLY be compelling the enemy to want to attack the defender more than other PCs. Non-melee-attack punishment (like 4E Paladin's Divine Challenge etc) would work well for most supernatural "defender" concepts, I think. For other classes, feats/themes that allow reactive attacks when an adjacent enemy attacks an ally would be nice.
For my favorite 4E defender, Warden, supernatural durability plus close range tremors/grasping vines/ice slicks to lock enemies down, maybe with some slight "aura" damage, would be something I'd like to see in 5E.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 3:07AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
I never said that the rule cannot work in a gridless environment,just that is better visualized and useful in grid play. Gridless imo usually is for peoples who like a faster and simpler game.
Anyway, it add another complexity layer, or at very least is something you have to track.
I think on this we can agree,no?
Given so, every rule who increase complexity or slow play should be a option chosen by the party based on their preferences.
In that regard,marks are a useful optional addition to full tactical play.
Some group howewer could prefer a simpler tactical play,like the one you can find into the Essentials.
More options= more fine tuning of your playstyle.
On this topic,i'm more concerned with the rules layers than marks working in grid(less).
DM: Products of MY Imagination ©. Since 1986.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 3:20AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
I never said that the rule cannot work in a gridless environment,just that is better visualized and useful in grid play. Gridless imo usually is for peoples who like a faster and simpler game.
Anyway, it add another complexity layer, or at very least is something you have to track.
I think on this we can agree,no?
Given so, every rule who increase complexity or slow play should be a option chosen by the party based on their preferences.
In that regard,marks are a useful optional addition to full tactical play.
Some group howewer could prefer a simpler tactical play,like the one you can find into the Essentials.
More options= more fine tuning of your playstyle.
On this topic,i'm more concerned with the rules layers than marks working in grid(less).
Well, at the risk of repeating myself, no. If reduced to it's most basic parts, the 4e Fighter's Combat Challenge, as written, does not need to track anything more than total TOTM does. It needs to know whether the baddie is within melee range of the fighter, if he attacks someone that isn't the fighter, and if he moves in a meangingful way(ie, at all). These are all things that the completely TOTM party needs to know.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 02, 2012 - 4:47AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Basic Melee or Ranged attack- At will
Charisma based smite attack- Per encounter/short rest/1 minute uninterrupted prayer
Detect Evil- At Will
Replace saving throck with Charisma one- Per encounter/short rest/1 minute uninterrupted prayer
Lay on Hands- Per encounter/short rest/1 minute uninterrupted prayer
Cleric spells- Vancian daily
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
