|
I am a person that enjoys 4E, but enjoys 3.5 and PRPG more. That said, I do like a lot about 4E that I want to yoink for my current games. One of the things I liked most about 4E was the "Mark" for the Fighters and Paladins. I felt this really gave a lot of oomph to classes that previously felt underpowered in 3.5, and gave them a much better feel.
And of course, because I like it, I wanted to convert it to 3.5. These are my suggested additions to the Fighter and Paladin (and if Jason wanted to snag them for PRPG, I think it would be awesome):
Fighter Mark Temporary name, I'd like something that sounded a bit better
At level 1, a fighter gets the ability to 'mark' his opponents. Anytime the fighter attacks an enemy, whether he hits or misses, the fighter can 'mark' said enemy. The mark lasts until the end of the fighter's next turn, unless the fighter attacks the enemy again, in which case the mark remains for another turn. While marked, an enemy takes a -2 to hit when attacking any target that is not the fighter. Also, a marked opponent leaves himself open to a fighter's attacks. If the marked enemy makes an attack against a character that is not the fighter, and the fighter is still adjacent to the enemy, the fighter may make an attack of opportunity on the target. Also, if the enemy takes a 5 ft. step away from the fighter while marked, this will also provoke an attack of opportunity.
This mechanic basically replicates the fighter mark from 4E. Not much explanation needed here.
Both of these attacks of opportunity are melee attacks, and made at the fighter's highest to hit. The fighter may not use unique combat options with these attacks, or other class abilities that alter the to hit. This includes Trip, Disarm, the paladin's Smite Evil, and similar effects.
This rule is to simulate that, in 4E, it's only a basic melee attack the Fighter gets to use, and no other Powers apply. I may need to work on the wording for this, so if anyone has some better way to put this, I'd love to hear it.
A fighter can only mark an opponent that has HD equal or lower than the fighter's level +3. A creature can only have one mark at a time. If another fighter or paladin marks the same enemy, their mark overrides the previous one.
This rule is to prevent the 1-level dip in the Fighter giving him useful access to this mark forever. This way, a 1-level dip will mean the mark is only effective against creatures of 4 HD or lower. The whole 'one mark at a time' thing should be self-explanatory to anyone who's played 4E.
Paladin Mark Again, temporary name.
At level 1, a paladin gets the ability to 'mark' his opponents once per round. On his turn, as a swift action, the paladin may designate an enemy within 25 ft. to be marked. While marked, the enemy takes a -2 to their attack if the attack does not include the paladin. Also, the first time they make an attack that does not include the paladin, they take holy damage equal to the paladin's level + charisma modifier.
In 4E, the max a player can get to with this is 9+cha mod at 21st level. I felt this needed to be a little higher, since HP in 3.5 tends to go higher as well. I may be wrong though, so this could easily be changed to half level.
To keep the mark, the paladin must engage the target. He must either attack the enemy or end his turn adjacent to it. If neither of these occur by the end of his turn, the mark ends and he cannot use Paladin Mark on his next turn.
Same as 4E.
The paladin may only mark opponents with HD equal to or lower than the paladin's level +3. This mark does not rely on intelligence or language, and is not affected by spell resistance.
I may need to add more rules in here, but basically it's saying that it only hits certain HD worth of monsters, like above, to prevent the 1-level dip. Otherwise, it's saying it works on any creature.
A creature can only have one mark at a time. If another fighter or paladin marks the same enemy, their mark overrides the previous one.
Same as above.
------------------------------
Thoughts or suggestions? My wording is never the best, so I may need to re-phrase some things. If people like these, and they work out, I'll work on making a good conversion for the Warlock mark. Maybe the Ranger one too, I'm not sure.
Marks don't really work for me because they're a lot of small bookkeeping, which seems to be 4E's thing. 3rd edition has more than enough bookkeeping for my needs, thank you very much.
It seems to me that what you're looking for is some sort of 'pay attention to me' power.
My opinions are:
1) Avoid small bonuses, unless they're constant and can be included
2) If you have temporary bonuses or penalties, try to make them instantaneous so no one has to keep track of them
3) If you give a player has a benefit, make them keep track of it - they'll do better at remembering their powers than the DM
What I would suggest is some sort of feat that the fighter and paladin could use to dominate a big bad's attention. Feats work better for me than altering the base powers, because then the power can be more impressive and being the center of attention is something the player chooses.
Here are two options:
1) If you want the monster's attention, have some sort of bull rush thing where you take a monster and push it back while following it. Now you're adjacent to it, and your friends aren't.
2) Ignore the mark part and just create a feat where if you're in melee with a monster, and it attacks someone who isn't you, you get an attack of opportunity against it. (1 per round).
The second one might need a BAB of +5 or a feat tax since it's pretty good, but I like it. It penalizes the monster for attacking someone other than the center of attention, it does so in a manner you can explain in game, there's no small bookkeeping, and the player can keep track of when it kicks in.
This ability seems very simular to the Knight [phb2] ability. Despite many attempts to read the Knight class I still can't make it more than half way through before I fall to sleep so I guess I'm not in favour for antthing like it PF, sorry.
Let them remain in 4e. There's better ways of giving more oomph to those classes.
I don't like the mechanic. Just one more thing to take track of without really adding anything. If the fighter wants to make sure the enemy attacks him instead of his wizard friend, make him get its attention. No need to replace tactics with game mechanics.
|
|
The main reason for this post was really to see if the idea was balanced. I knew that posting it on a 3E forum would cause a lot of people to shy away from it, having its origins in 4E.
That said, I think fighters do need something like this. Right now they aren't really that good at defending their teammates, aside from sheer aggression. Without unique prestige class abilities (or maybe some feats I'm not aware of) an enemy can be next to a fighter and his buddy, totally ignore the fighter, and wail on his buddy. Having a method to prevent that I think would help bring the fighter up out of the underpowered pit he always seems to be in.
I think if a fighter is pounding away at a bad guy, that should be more than enough to get its' attention.
You could always use the Goad feat from Complete Adventurer.
I think if a fighter is pounding away at a bad guy, that should be more than enough to get its' attention.
But when that damage is piddle sticks compared to the rogue and spell casting classes its hard for the fighter to really make himself noticeable.
I think if a fighter is pounding away at a bad guy, that should be more than enough to get its' attention.But when that damage is piddle sticks compared to the rogue and spell casting classes its hard for the fighter to really make himself noticeable.
I'm inclined to agree with Victor here, actually. As the damage sponge, I think it's an interesting ability to add to the fighter, if not the Paladin (which fills a slightly different role, IMO).
-Steve
|
If I were to make a list of my top ten least favorite things about 4E, this one would be on that list. It's also probably the power that makes people go "Wow, 4E's based off of MMOs!". The power screams "taunt" from the various games out there and the influence is downright obvious if you ask me. That in itself could be a negative if you're bothered by that kind of thing.
For me, the problem is twofold. First off, while the ability to goad your target into attacking you seems fighterly, the this specific implementation seems forced and clunky. There's a lot more paperwork to keep track of, and it's too easy to just keep activating over and over to get your target's attention. A feat like goad at least requires the fighter do something, and as a DM there's an obvious "I have to attack you, or I don't" feature to the feat.
There's also the fact that they're easy to "cheat" with (something many playtesters found early on, which is why it's curious they stayed the same). The little exploit is this: get yourself longstrider or another movement ability, "mark" your target, and move out of melee range. Your party can essentially "kite" your opponent without even swinging a sword. As written, a paladin could kill an opponent without so much as swinging a sword (which doesn't feel very lawful-good to me, but your mileage may vary).
I have not played with mark enough to know if I like it. But I do want something to make combat more interesting and 'strategic'. Maybe something that says you can not withdraw from a Fighter in combat without an AoO? Or he gets a AoO if something else happens. Something to give him a little more umph and to control the melee.
I also want more movement in combat. A good attack moving someone a 5' bullrush. Or maybe a good bullrush causing damage. I don't know. Just something to keep people paying attention to other peoples moves. A feat that allows you to switch places with an adjacent enemy you are attacking. Once again, I don't know, that is Jason's job, but something.
|
|
The main reason I wanted some way to translate these is the reception they got from my players. The paladin didn't think his mark was that great (though in truth, it probably ends up doing more damage than the fighters) simply because he could only target one enemy each turn. The fighter's player, on the other hand, loved his. He's played a lot of tanks, and with every one he always needs some kind of prestige class ability or feat to really get the sense that he's 'protecting' the group. The fighter mark helped him get monsters to 'stick' more to him and protect the rest of the group, which was the main goal.
Sure, it has an MMO feel to it. A lot of mechanics do, 3.5 included. Moving away from a slow monster and firing a ranged weapon at it to 'kite' one, grab a cleric to be a 'healbot', kill lots of guys for 'XP', only do quests that really have a 'reward'.
I'm not saying all groups do this, but there's already plenty of mechanics in D&D that lend an MMO feel. It's a pretty broad stroke.
The main reason I wanted to try out the marks in PRPG was to
A. Make my players happy
B. Bring something in that doesn't seem imbalancing
Ideally, the Fighter being one of the worst classes in the game (before PRPG, still afterwards they're a bit bland) I thought they could use the boost. It was suggested this ability sub in for their 1st level bonus feat. Then they'd still end up with 20 feats (if going with PRPG).
The main question is if, IF, this was a rule, do you think it could be balanced? If not, why?
Always remember: The "bland" is intentional. The game needs one simple class without a million different powers to track. That's the fighter.
But when that damage is piddle sticks compared to the rogue and spell casting classes its hard for the fighter to really make himself noticeable.
Would be relevant if it were true.
The main reason for this post was really to see if the idea was balanced. I knew that posting it on a 3E forum would cause a lot of people to shy away from it, having its origins in 4E.
Did you know that it's possible to reject an idea on more grounds than "It's from 4e". In fact, I did just that in this very thread.
|
|
Always remember: The "bland" is intentional. The game needs one simple class without a million different powers to track. That's the fighter.
For one, the mark doesn't exactly complicate the fighter, nor is it 'a million powers to track'. I have the alea tools magnets, so it's very easy to keep track of things. Second, I think it actually helps the appeal of the fighter. I've had a lot of new players think D&D was pretty boring when they played a fighter because the other classes got to do cool abilities and such. The barbarian has ended up being the preferred newbie class at this point.
For one, the mark doesn't exactly complicate the fighter, nor is it 'a million powers to track'.Always remember: The "bland" is intentional. The game needs one simple class without a million different powers to track. That's the fighter.
That wasn't in response to the mark, but to the claim that fighters are too bland.
The mark still is something else to keep track of, and I don't like it enough to endure this tracking.
It would mean that you have to keep track of whom you marked, and under what conditions the marks expire (unless they have a fixed duration, which wouldn't make sense, since you could have, say, a dragon you attack and who then takes wing to hareass your wizard from the air.)
I have the alea tools magnets, so it's very easy to keep track of things.
That requires miniatures. 3e doesn't enforce using miniatures, so any help that is based on using the mat is only useful if you do use the map.
I think it actually helps the appeal of the fighter. I've had a lot of new players think D&D was pretty boring when they played a fighter because the other classes got to do cool abilities and such. The barbarian has ended up being the preferred newbie class at this point.
I had that too. But then again, I know people who will always start using a plain fighter if they play a new game system, and many who have started with a fighter (and later played a fighter) because they didn't want a dozen different mechanics get in the way. They still get to do cool stuff - but it's just mostly resolved with an attack roll. Just because the fighter doesn't get to use a rules mechanic that's called "Vicious Curse of One Thousand Paper Cuts" doesn't mean that he just hammers at the enemy like some industrial robot.
And if you decide that you want your fighter more "exciting" after all, there's enough feats for that.
That's the beauty of the fighter: If you want, you can play him 100% simple, by choosing feats that will give you flat bonuses (weapon focus and follow-ups, skill focus, the save boosters, toughness....), but you can also have a wide range of complexity, from easy stuff like power attack over improved trip/disarm/bullrush up to two-weapon setup, tactical feats like combat brute, and robillar's gambit.
I personally didn't think much of the 'Mark' ability of the fighter is a bit daft personally, it's sort of a challenge like seen in Warhammer Fantasy Battles where the other person suffers from avoiding the challenge which is fine if the other person is a paladin, knight or honorable but an unscrupulous enemy will work harder at avoiding a dangerous foe and care less about doing so in favour of attacking weaker enemies( rogues, wizards etc).
Other abilities of the 4E Fighter are very good and would be good as 'Fighter Only Feats' with level prerequisits attached and Weapon Training prerequisits (must be a 3rd level fighter with a +2 Weapon Training in Spears..for axample). Spear for example with Armour piercing and with Dex bonus acting as AP when attacking, or Hammers doing an automatic knockdown/knockback attempt with a bonus equal to the weilders Con plus many more once per combat abilities.
I like the fighter as it stands and it is a lot more usable than the basic 3.5 fighter but a few extra 'Fighter only' feats would be a nice addition, especially as this would separate the fighter styles.
What do people think?
Please don't assume that some folks' dislike of this, is just because it's 4E. Alot of people don't like 4E because of it's rules. This is a 4E rule.
Whether I like it or not however, I do have a question.
Does the "Mark" know he's marked?
Lets assume Fighter hurls a throwing hammer at Orc. Fighter Misses. Orc doesn't see the hammer.
Fighter has attempted to attack Orc, so fighter marks Orc.
Does Orc know fighter has marked him?
If Orc sees Wizard but doesn't see Fighter, does Orc receive a penalty for fighting the mage when he doesn't even know the fighter is there?
Is there any range limitation? Can the fighter shoot at something beyond his range and still "mark it" when he misses?
-S
Please don't assume that some folks' dislike of this, is just because it's 4E. Alot of people don't like 4E because of it's rules. This is a 4E rule.
Whether I like it or not however, I do have a question.
Does the "Mark" know he's marked?
Lets assume Fighter hurls a throwing hammer at Orc. Fighter Misses. Orc doesn't see the hammer.
Fighter has attempted to attack Orc, so fighter marks Orc.Does Orc know fighter has marked him?
If Orc sees Wizard but doesn't see Fighter, does Orc receive a penalty for fighting the mage when he doesn't even know the fighter is there?Is there any range limitation? Can the fighter shoot at something beyond his range and still "mark it" when he misses?
-S
I'm not sure that its that well defined so this will be dealt with by an Errata. By the way its written 'yes' is the answer that is the way it works. A bit odd at best.
It still needs to be decided before we can pull a rule into Paizo's set. Since the OP wants the rule, I leave it to him to answer the question.
Personally, I don't like it. It feels metagamey.
So the fighter can make me hit less often if I attack something else? What if I tumble backwards, run out of reach and attack someone else? Why do I suffer -2?
Why does the fighter marking me, keep the paladin from marking me? Why does the fighter's choice suddenly remove an option from the paladin?
Just imagine if Dodge worked that way.
"I'm sorry rogue 1, but fighter 2 already chose that orc for his dodge target, you'll have to select a different creature".
Huh?
The whole concept feels like a video game.
-S
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
How about just buying a suggestion based item that the fighter can use to MAKE the target attack him...that uses already built mechanics and doesn't require any funky tracking. Might I humbly suggest this
As for the mark concept, isn't 3.5 version of dodge basically a mark? I think there was a WOTC splat book that built on this, with feats that gave extra abilities that a character could use towards their dodge target.
I am really opposed to Marks as a base ability to classes. Aggro management is for computer games with bad AI, not a tabletop game with intelligent opponents.
When I actually saw this mechanic, I immediately thought of a dog. So I was actually a bit surprised to see no Codpiece of Marking in the magic item listing. I figured for sure it'd be a big hit ;).
Please don't assume that some folks' dislike of this, is just because it's 4E. Alot of people don't like 4E because of it's rules. This is a 4E rule.
No. It's a 3E rule that migrated to 4E and became a more prominant part of the system. Others named the feat that was introduced in the Miniature's Handbook, I believe, which came out before 3.5. It was then added into one of the class books. It was 3E's attempt at imitating the Taunt and aggro management of video games. 4E just added it as a more universal class ability.
Does the "Mark" know he's marked?
Yes, the enemy knows that it has been goaded/taunted/etc.. Things are aware of status effects on themselves (including being Marked) and their enemies (like an enemy being bloodied)
The whole concept feels like a video game.
There is no denying that. It's definately one of the more video game-like aspects to come from 3E.
Others named the feat that was introduced in the Miniature's Handbook, I believe, which came out before 3.5.
Karui, sounds like it should maybe remain a feat. Check out the Miniatures Handbook (which I don't have) and see if the version there will work for you -- if so, allow it, by all means. But the reaction here tells me these probably shouldn't be default class features.
It should not be the PCs telling the monsters what to do. It should be the DM. An ancient dragon isn't going to be taunted by a Fighter hurling insults. It's going to decide what it wants to do, then do that.
Computers use the agro mechanic because they're not smart enough to act in a realistic manner. Just attacking the guy doing the most damage isn't necessarily rational either. Neither is ignoring the fighter killing your best friend right next to you to go run to attack the mage that did 2 points of damage with an AoE, just because the fighter hasn't hurt YOU yet.
Taunts exist, you're right, so that the meatshield can keep the target's attention.
In D&D, you can actually just physically block the monster.
Taunt mechanics solve a video game problem. Transferring them back to Paper and Pencil simply adds a silly mechanic, because P&P games have different problems.
re: Blocking
Er, no. Blocking only works in a real-time system. In a turn-based system, unless the environment doesn't allow for it (narrow corridors for example), it is simple to simply have a monster walk around the fighter.(Why do you think the Enlarged spike-chain wielder was such a popular build?)
Readied action to charge when the dragon comes within range makes for rather effective blocking. Charge attack, then AoOs if it decided to keep moving. DMs apparently aren't the only ones to self-nerf.
Also, the initiative mechanic is a fill in for simultaneity (i.e. real time). At the end of the round, it should be possible to look at the round and figure out what 'really' happened. In this case, the fighter ran in front of the dragon in order to protect the caster. That is, blocking.
The spike chain wielder was so popular because it allowed Full Attacks all the time because you never had to move. Entirely different issue. The fact that it allowed lazy blocking was a side effect.
How about just buying a suggestion based item that the fighter can use to MAKE the target attack him...that uses already built mechanics and doesn't require any funky tracking. Might I humbly suggest this
As for the mark concept, isn't 3.5 version of dodge basically a mark? I think there was a WOTC splat book that built on this, with feats that gave extra abilities that a character could use towards their dodge target.
I am planning to run a 4E game sometime so I am going to come across this class ability. I am planning to tell any character with this ability that it will depend on the nature of the enemy, it won't work on animals, or non-intelligent creatures or unscrupulous enemies but it will work on creatures with an Ego( red dragons but not green, Balor but not minor demons, enemy commander but not a priest of mask etc). Make it a more roleplaying thing.
So if its taunts and jeers why can't the fighter and paladin both taunt and jeer?
I'm not trying to be overly picky, the mechanic just doesn't feel right.
If you want a "taunt' sort of ability, it should probably tied to Intimidate or some such. "you scare him into fighting you directly" or "you taunt him into ignoring others and coming after you". Rather than a direct class ability, it can be tied to existing mechanics. This solves the problem of being "marked" (since there would be no such thing) while forcing the creature to make an opposed roll, or attack the PC.
I am also curious how this feature will work with NPC's that have class levels. Can the NPC's mark characters to control where the PC's go?
I really, really do not like this.
Intelligent foes shouldn't be "forced" into fighting any particular character. If the fighter wants to get hit, he needs to be up front. He doesn't need a video game mechanic to get the job done, he just needs to be aware of tactics and to use them.
Yes, some classes can get around him- but that's why we have team work. It's also why teams shouldn't split up.
-S
I am planning to run a 4E game sometime so I am going to come across this class ability. I am planning to tell any character with this ability that it will depend on the nature of the enemy, it won't work on animals, or non-intelligent creatures or unscrupulous enemies but it will work on creatures with an Ego( red dragons but not green, Balor but not minor demons, enemy commander but not a priest of mask etc). Make it a more roleplaying thing.How about just buying a suggestion based item that the fighter can use to MAKE the target attack him...that uses already built mechanics and doesn't require any funky tracking. Might I humbly suggest this
As for the mark concept, isn't 3.5 version of dodge basically a mark? I think there was a WOTC splat book that built on this, with feats that gave extra abilities that a character could use towards their dodge target.
I'm of the reverse opinion. If it were to be instituted, I'd want to see it much like the "frightful presence" ability of the Storm Druid (Dragon 328, I believe), where you can employ it only against a certain HD level of creature or lower. I'd want it to be a feat, not stackable, but so that each time you could choose a different manner of foe against which it would operate...something like this (using the "Storm Druid" text as a basis):
-----------------------------------Warrior's Presence:
Prereq: Fighter or Paladin, BAB +2
A warrior with this feat can unsettle foes with her mere presence and focuses the foe's attention upon herself. The ability takes effect whenever the warrior attacks or charges. The creature attacked or charged is subject to the effect if it has fewer HD than the warrior.
A potentially affected foe that succeeds on a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 Warrior level + Warrior's Str modifier) remains immune to that warrior's presence effect for 24 hours. On a failed save, the creature takes a -2 to hit when attacking any target that is not the fighter, so long as the warrior remains within range (10 ft. x 1/2 warrior level) of the creature. In addition, should the affected creature make an attack against a creature that is not the warrior--or if the affected creature takes a 5 ft. step away from the warrior--and the warrior is still adjacent to the affected creature, the warrior may make an attack of opportunity against the affected creature.
This feat may be taken more than once, and may be taken as a Fighter's bonus feat. Its effects are not stackable. Each time it is taken, the warrior must select and declare the type/subtype against which the feat is effective. (See DMG for Type/subtype listing.) If a warrior limits herself to a subtype rather than a broad type, the "to hit" modifier increases to -3.
This feat represents specialized training a warrior receives against a specific type of creature/foe, including how to attract and keep that foe's attention while in melee, and how to distract the foe's attention from her fellow adventurers.
So if its taunts and jeers why can't the fighter and paladin both taunt and jeer?
I'm not trying to be overly picky, the mechanic just doesn't feel right.
If you want a "taunt' sort of ability, it should probably tied to Intimidate or some such. "you scare him into fighting you directly" or "you taunt him into ignoring others and coming after you". Rather than a direct class ability, it can be tied to existing mechanics. This solves the problem of being "marked" (since there would be no such thing) while forcing the creature to make an opposed roll, or attack the PC.
I am also curious how this feature will work with NPC's that have class levels. Can the NPC's mark characters to control where the PC's go?
Theoretically yes they could but I would no more use the mechanic as a method of forcing the PC to fight who I want fight than having the PC forcing my central characters to fight them. Like I stated earlier I was going to let the PC's know that this would only work on certain NPC's, intelligent or egotistical enemies.
Intelligent foes shouldn't be "forced" into fighting any particular character. If the fighter wants to get hit, he needs to be up front. He doesn't need a video game mechanic to get the job done, he just needs to be aware of tactics and to use them.
Yes, some classes can get around him- but that's why we have team work. It's also why teams shouldn't split up.-S
I'd also make it work the other way a bit, if a fighter challenged an NPC then started doubleteaming him, I'd point out that it was the PC that made the challenge then needed to get help in the fight.
My main beef with this concept is that it almost seems magical in nature. There's no mundane way to explain this ability. In other words, take away all magic items, and all spellcasters for a minute - and ask yourself, do the classes that have no spellcasting ability still make sense if one were trying to create a game set in Medieval Europe? If the answer is no, then something is wrong, IMHO.
Marking in 4E is really a double-edged blade; all it really ends up doing is make the creatures wail on you and I find I frequently don't have the HP to take it. All in all, I think marking in 4E is an overall failure - said as a DM/player of a fighter/paladin multiclass in 4E.
Still, I think the fighter classes could do with an ability that allows them to keep monsters from stomping past them to turn the wizard or rogue who are trying to hide behind the fighter into paste.
I'd like to either see a feat/ability that allows a fighter to take an immediate action to move to intercept a creature* or to attack something if it takes a 5-ft. step or withdraw action. Perhaps even a feat/ability such as the Knight's Challenge to allow the fighter type to draw an enemy off another PC.
* "Readying a charge" hurts the fighter actually, who may end up giving multiple attacks to pull this off.
* "Readying a charge" hurts the fighter actually, who may end up giving multiple attacks to pull this off.
Perhaps, but if a player described his action as 'I stay between the Dragon and the mage', that's the best way to deal with it. If you go and run off to do something else, guess what, you're not going to be defending the mage very well.