|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 5:13PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
Call it whatever just give me mechanics that attempts to force engaguement at the sacrafices of position. Thats the main thing. In melee the marker should move with the marked. The combat needs more dance to it.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 5:17PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2012
|
Call it whatever just give me mechanics that attempts to force engaguement at the sacrafices of position. Thats the main thing. In melee the marker should move with the marked. The combat needs more dance to it.
Which means you want a rule to force the DM to play the way you want
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 5:17PM
#53
|
|
|
Try yelling it louder Carl they are ignoring you because you are sinking their boat and cant come up with a good retort.
A mark doesn't have to be that at all. In fact, it really isn't a held action, though you can describe it as such. It depends on how involved in the narrative the players are, or how involved the DMs want the players to be.
A mark just represents the affect a defender has on an enemy's ability to attack his allies. When the fighter attacks, engaging the enemy makes it that much harder for the enemy to swing at someone else. The fighter is attacking him. It's not easy to deal with a trained swordsman and then turn around and attack someone else. The penalty represents that distraction.
It could also represent the fighter actively getting in the way.
Or the ally putting up a spirited defense because his guardian is there to protect him.
You can describe it however you want.
And I think that is the real problem.
For some people, describing how the Mark applies in-game is problematic. But that is a far-cry from claiming that it makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 5:33PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
The problem is the mark is not something the fighter does in response to the opponents actions. I am 100% in favor of giving the fighters all kinds of ways of reacting to the creatures actions in combat - up to and including possibly letting them get free attacks, stop their movement, or whatever.
But a mark is something the fighter does TO the opponent.
The fighter somehow applies a status effect TO the opponent which not only gives the fighter the opportunity to act in response to the creatures actions (a reasonable reflection of the fighter's special training) but also, somehow, 'magically' affects the creature's accuracy.
That is what a mark is - and nothing in the real world has any equivalency.
Marks make no sense.
Allowing fighters to - with their heightened training - react to their opponents actions? Great - I'm all for it.
But that isn't a mark.
Heck - that't not even technically what a mark is in 4E. All a mark does in 4E is apply a penalty to the creature's attacks if they don't attack the fighter. All the rest of the stuff people say they want and keep calling a mark isn't even the mark. It is how fighter's can respond to marked creatures.
It is the mark I object to - this thing that fighters do that 'magically' makes them less accurate when attacking one person then when they are attacking the target standing right next to him.
Using reactions, combat expertise, held actions, whatever to allow them to punish opponents that ignore them - absolutely.
But it should be something they do, using their own abilities and it should not involve attaching a persistent thing to their opponents.
Even Defender's Aura would be 10,000% preferable to a mark. At least that is understandable as something the fighter does and doesn't require the magical mind control of a mark.
In short - it isn't the outcome I object to - it is the mechanic.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 5:39PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jan 27, 2008
|
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.
I like "gamey" in describing the marking mechanic but we should keep in mind that this was the first pass and these things usually get a little better with age. It could be handled as a way to spend Stunt Dice without too much hassle. This amount to affect one person, this other higher amount to affect everybody surrounding you. That is kind of the beauty of Stunt Dice and modularity build in my opinion.
As far as what a fighter's mark is? Well I think that is where a bit of imagination and maybe cinematic license enters the picture. A mark could be a fighter who is really good at getting his opponent's attention (taunt, flair in fighting style, shield in the eyes). If it is done as one of the options as stunt dice you can disallow marking if it just doesn't sit right with you or perhaps you want a bit of a gritty realistic game.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 5:39PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2007
|
Dude when you suppress fire you do that too make the other guy less accurate(hence the -2), it also sets up another soldier or grunt the oppertunity to make the the kill shot(wich might be considered the held action). Also I get some some of you guys dont like marking wich is fine, but the way your expressing it is coming off kinda douchey.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 5:45PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
Call it whatever just give me mechanics that attempts to force engaguement at the sacrafices of position. Thats the main thing. In melee the marker should move with the marked. The combat needs more dance to it.
Which means you want a rule to force the DM to play the way you want
Im more of a DM/designer than a player. Im more interested in giving the players what they want without abiding by some silly "get over here" effect. Essentially if you want to keep someone from engaging another its all footwork and skill. You have to dance with them. Would work well with Next's challenge system.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 6:18PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
We don't need marks per se. Marks are an implementation of an idea, and irrespective of the merits of the idea itself the implementation can be good or bad.
The idea is that the fighter can actually defend his allies. Even if he isn't that close to the person he's defending - after all, if I can keep the melee enemy HERE, he isn't attacking my buddy over THERE.
This basic idea is GOOD. It's quite realistic; it's why countries prefer to attack their enemies and have the war over there, rather than be attacked and have it over here; it's why basketball teams prefer to play on the end of the court where they are on offense; it's why castles have walls and their residents prefer to have archers on the walls facing out rather than in.
So the fighter needs a way to punish an enemy who, while within the fighter's reach, attacks someone other than him, and to discourage an enemy from moving away from him.
And naturally this needs to be limited or restricted to an appropriate potency.
4E's first implementation (marks) has problems. I think the mark should have no effect if for any reason the marker cannot enforce it. (The 4E Paladin's mark is magical and self-enforcing so would be exempt.) But a defender with a reach/ranged weapon should be able to enforce the mark on enemies he can reach, even if they are not adjacent.
4E's second implementation (defender auras) also has problems. Again, a defender with a reach weapon should be able to use his defender capabilities on enemies within his reach. But to automatically apply this ability to every enemy that is adjacent (let alone within reach) is overpowered.
Obviously I think marks come closer to being right than auras... but (4E) marks are not exactly right, and maybe there's some other approach that is simpler and easier to get right.
But Next would be better if it includes some decent implementation of the basic idea than if it doesn't. And what I see so far in the playtest doesn't have it.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 7:30PM
#59
|
|
|
CarlT, I really think your issue is how you envision a combat playing out. It seems you can't explain through the narrative how a fighter might influence an enemy's attack against his allies, and so you have a problem with the Mark mechanic. It is the mark I object to - this thing that fighters do that 'magically' makes them less accurate when attacking one person then when they are attacking the target standing right next to him.
Again, you seem fixated on envisioning a Mark one way, when you don't have to. The fighter marks by attacking, so it isn't a "magical" thing that the fighter does. It is the fact that he is engaging this enemy in battle that makes the enemy less able to land a blow against the fighter's ally. It isn't perfect, but it certainly isn't unbelievable.
Heck, if I'm fighting another warrior, and his big strong buddy is watching on the sidelines, just the presence of his friend might be enough to distract me from fighting at my best. I'll be worried about when his friend is going to grab me from behind or clock me over the head. And yet you have trouble imagining how a guy swinging an axe or hammer at someone can impact that person's ability to attack another person.
While I don't think the Mark mechanic is perfect, the issues I am seeing raised seem more a failure of imagination than anything else.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 8:13PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true"> The fighter somehow applies a status effect TO the opponent which not only gives the fighter the opportunity to act in response to the creatures actions (a reasonable reflection of the fighter's special training) but also, somehow, 'magically' affects the creature's accuracy.
Stopped reading there.
Marks make no sense because you refuse to understand what a mark is.
Magic marks only happen for the Swordmage(and Battlemind to a certain extent).
A mark is not a glowing arrow over someone's head telling them "ATTACK THE FIGHTER IDIOT!".
It is not "Fighter Mind Control."
The mark is the Fighter getting up in an enemy's face and using his superior fighting skills to exploit any weakness the enemy shows. The -2 penalty from his mark represents the Fighter physically distracting the enemy, making it harder for them to concentrate on an attack against someone else. From a narrative standpoint, the Fighter is not just standing there staring at his marked target, he's keeping the attacks going, making it much more difficult for them to get their attack off. If the enemy tries to make a break for it or attack someone else while the Fighter is up in his face, that's a split second he's ignoring the Fighter, giving the Fighter a prime chance to whack him in the face.
And before the inevitable "But the -2 stays even when the enemy does get away from the Fighter, MAGIC!", it's once again a narrative thing. All turns during a round are happening in the same 6 seconds at the same time. When an enemy manages to get away from the Fighter, it could be because the Fighter's attack while he was escaping put the enemy slightly off balance, maybe he hit the enemy's weapon and they had to regrip before attacking, maybe they're keeping an eye on the Fighter because since the turns happen at the same time narratively, the Fighter could be right on their heels for all they know.
|
|
|
