4e Essentials

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not that familiar with the destination system, but marking plus mark punishments seem very portable to me even for a realism-based system.

It's not, though. Marking is entirely a mechanical concept, and it's not possible to explain it either realistically or from an in-character perspective without contradicting its mechanics.

I want as little to do with a mat as possible. OSR games weren't mat-dependent, nor is 5e (hypothetically).

Well, a "power" we sometimes used in mapless 2E was that the fighter would interpose himself between the wizard and the orc - meaning that the orc can NOT reach the wizard in melee (except by dealing with the fighter somehow). With turn-by-turn movement on a map, this isn't possible; but in a mapless game it sounds like a plausible move.

[tiornys]

It's not, though. Marking is entirely a mechanical concept, and it's not possible to explain it either realistically or from an in-character perspective without contradicting its mechanics.

Just connect the mark with the fighter's presence similar to the essentials aura, and I see no issues with realism. Ignore the fighter who is IN YOUR FACE and have an attack penalty, and also a retaliation attack.

[MeeposFire]

I'm not that familiar with the destination system, but marking plus mark punishments seem very portable to me even for a realism-based system. So does some amount of forced movement (pushing, slides adjacent to the fighter) and proning, and maybe even some sort of dazing/stunning analogs (via blows to the head).

I don't see Come and Get It making the cut, but making a class with good damage output (especially if enemies try to ignore them), good toughness, and a lot of influence over their immediate surroundings seems very doable.

To be fair to the 5e fighter though and to flip it slightly on its head the ability to make 4 attacks with full mods and with one action would be considered (and was considered) to be very powerful as an encounter exploit and even be pretty good as a daily power. A 5e fighter gets that as an at will. If you were building a striker fighter that would be pretty ideal but as a defender fighter of course some other abilities would be more important. The more important part is that 4e and 5e are really designed to emphasize different things which I think is great because I can play 4e when I want to include more tactical play with a lot of party power combos while 5e works well for me when I want something else.

[Dimers]

I did notice that a lot of 4e fighter "powers" (still sounds weird saying that) have a lot to do with the mat: pushing back so many "squares", etc. I want as little to do with a mat as possible. OSR games weren't mat-dependent, nor is 5e (hypothetically).

Do you have any experience with the game system 13th Age? I feel like most (not all) 4e powers could be easily translated into its coarse-grained mechanics for position, movement, targeting and so forth, and I know from experience that 13th Age doesn't need a battle map. So if you like the idea of 4e powers' effects but don't like the grid, try translating through 13th Age.

(BTW, pretty much all 4e classes' powers have a lot to do with the grid. It's inherent to the system, not really optional. And that's exactly how 4e enthusiasts generally want things to be.)

I think a lot of that can be handled with engagement manipulation. E.g. the fighter is able to forcibly disengage the monster from his archer buddy so the archer can easily reestablish range, or the fighter can swing the monster around so it's engaged with the rogue as well as the fighter.

Yeah, that. You saying "engagement" is why I thought of 13th Age.

[Kurald Galain]

Just connect the mark with the fighter's presence similar to the essentials aura, and I see no issues with realism. Ignore the fighter who is IN YOUR FACE and have an attack penalty, and also a retaliation attack.

That works, but it requires rules that e.g. you can't mark with ranged attacks, and the penalty disappears if the fighter is unconscious stunned, and the mark doesn't get overridden by a paladin's divine power.

[Vhaidara]

and the penalty disappears if the fighter is unconscious

That is already a thing

A mark ends immediately when its creator dies or falls unconscious.

[tiornys]

That works, but it requires rules that e.g. you can't mark with ranged attacks, and the penalty disappears if the fighter is unconscious, and the mark doesn't get overridden by a paladin's divine power.

I'm not advocating that we just take things from 4E and try to drop them into a realism-based system without modification. Yes, some of the rules would need to be tweaked. However, the concept is very portable and should be expressable in other rulesets without losing too much of its bite. If your fighter is regularly forcing enemies to choose between attacking the most durable thing on the battlefield or promoting the fighter into one of the most damaging things on the battlefield by trying to ignore him, then you're a long way towards capturing the essence of a 4E fighter.

[Beoric]

That works, but it requires rules that e.g. you can't mark with ranged attacks, and the penalty disappears if the fighter is unconscious, and the mark doesn't get overridden by a paladin's divine power.

I'm not advocating that we just take things from 4E and try to drop them into a realism-based system without modification. Yes, some of the rules would need to be tweaked. However, the concept is very portable and should be expressable in other rulesets without losing too much of its bite. If your fighter is regularly forcing enemies to choose between attacking the most durable thing on the battlefield or promoting the fighter into one of the most damaging things on the battlefield by trying to ignore him, then you're a long way towards capturing the essence of a 4E fighter.

Not sure if either of you have ever played high school football, but I have long associated the marking and defender's aura mechanics with a man-to-man and zone defence. When that receiver is going for the ball, and he knows that he either hasn't shaken the cornerback or has entered a safety's zone, and he "hears footsteps", in amateur ball you better believe he is taking a -2 penalty to make the catch, and is getting put down hard if he succeeds.

Incidentally, "marking" is the word for these defences in soccer, and I think I have heard it applied to basketball as well (although google is failing me right now).

Its really just a matter of knowing you are under threat, that someone is focussing their attention on you, and will strike if you take your attention off them. I could see it working for marking someone at range, as long as you have a ranged attack and the target knows it.

[Kurald Galain]

Not sure if either of you have ever played high school football, but I have long associated the marking and defender's aura mechanics with a man-to-man and zone defence.

Yes, and the point is that this contradicts the actual rules for marking.

Such as that a fighter's mark persists if the fighter moves out of melee, or is stunned.

[ThePurple]

Such as that a fighter's mark persists if the fighter moves out of melee, or is stunned.

Which is why I find the Essentials version of the marking mechanics (e.g. it's an aura) to be more logical, elegant, and interesting.

[masteraleph]

Which is why I find the Essentials version of the marking mechanics (e.g. it's an aura) to be more logical, elegant, and interesting.

Eh, the mark works fine logically. A fighter's mark is that they seem the most dangerous on the battlefield even when stunned, and you have a desire to knock them out even if they can't currently get to you. A paladin's mark is some sort of divine nagging in your head that you need to go after the person. A swordmage's mark is a magical compulsion. Etc.

[ThePurple]

A fighter's mark is that they seem the most dangerous on the battlefield even when stunned, and you have a desire to knock them out even if they can't currently get to you.

That's what bothers me. The magical/supernatural compulsions that can cause you damage even when out of range make sense to still apply at range or when disabled. My only problem is with the fighter mark still applying when you're out of reach of the fighter or the fighter is disabled. Marking is supposed to represent some level of distraction or interference on the part of the marking individual, which doesn't really grok with it still applying when the target has moved out of range.

Honestly, I'd be fine with marking not having any of the reduced accuracy effects and just having it just be a mechanism to allow defenders to basically tell enemies that they're prepped for retributive attacks. Of course, the problem with that becomes marking becoming a largely useless status effect when anyone except a Defender is applying it (though you could remedy this by giving all marking effects some kind of retributive rider, written specifically for that mark, which would be pretty cool; imagine a leader using a mark that heals adjacent allies if an enemy breaks the mark or a Barbarian mark that increases their damage dealt for the rest of the encounter whenever an enemy breaks the mark).

[darkdragoon]

If someone hits or insults you, moving away doesn't negate it in and of itself. I'd say this falls under the "hand grenade rule"

Strike and disengage is also a fairly common feature of fencing and kendo. Now you could probably have a field day arguing about how much those resemble actual medieval/jidaigeki era swordfighting.

And those carry over into the "one step sparring" of other arts particularly karate.

The aura is simpler, and perhaps preferable especially if you have a bunch of mooks around you, but even then you have these odd contradictions like a class with a staff option but nothing that really takes advantage of the staff having reach.

[ThePurple]

The aura is simpler, and perhaps preferable especially if you have a bunch of mooks around you, but even then you have these odd contradictions like a class with a staff option but nothing that really takes advantage of the staff having reach.

This is where you blend the two of them. All weapon types would get the aura for marking any enemy that happens to be adjacent as well as an at-will to mark enemies at distance (which could also allow thrown/ranged weapon fighters to be relevant). Reach weapon OAs only become OP when you allow them to dominate the entirety of their reach rather than just a single target.

[Beoric]

Yes, and the point is that this contradicts the actual rules for marking.

Such as that a fighter's mark persists if the fighter moves out of melee, or is stunned.

Right, but this discussion came up in the context of porting the concept to 5e. You don't have to port the whole of concept unchanged.

If you wanted to tweak 4e, you could make the penalty a fear effect, which could explain why it lingers for a few seconds after a fighter disengages; and you could change the rule that it persists after the fighter is stunned, assuming that the marked creature is aware that the fighter is stunned.

Of course, it’s getting less and less relevant to my own game, as I am increasingly moving toward treating 4e game mechanics as a suggestion for how a power works assuming normal conditions. And hey, its not nearly as offensive as proning a gelatinous cube.

As for blending marks with defender’s auras, I dislike this idea because fundamentally I think a man-to-man defence works differently from a zone defence.

[Tvtyrant]

Marks could be renamed Impose, and be fluffed as having jarred the opponent so they feel compelled to keep an eye on you. Battles are chaotic, they can never be sure where you are going to be and that you aren't going to suddenly charge them from behind.

Rattle is kind of similar in concept.

[Yakk]

So I've been playing a lot with a 4e/5e hybrid, and have tried to make a fighter as effective as 4e but in a more simulationist way.

The best I can come up for for "marking" is "Threat" -- at the end of each turn as a Fighter, each foe you attack gets Threatened.

If you are hit, you must consume your Threat to defend. If your Threat remains on your next turn, it gets consumed to cause extra pain.

For a 5e game, it might has a Threat die that starts at a d4 and goes up.

At the end of each of your turns, you place a Threat die on each foe you have attacked on your turn, and remove all other Threat dice.

When you are hit by anyone, or fail a saving throw, you must consume the Threat die of your choice. You gain a bonus to your AC and/or save equal to the roll, and reduce the damage by the amount of the roll.

If you attack a foe with a threat die, you consume it. Roll it. You gain that bonus to your to-hit and damage on all attacks on the foe. When your turn ends, this bonus goes away.

You can then stack more mechanics on Threat dice.

For example:

As a reaction consume a Threat die on someone who casts a spell; roll it and move up to 5' times the result of the die towards the target. If you are adjacent at the end of this movement, if the threat die roll matches or exceeds the spell level, it is countered; otherwise, you can make a Strength check against 10 plus the spell level, and on success the spell is countered.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

So I've been playing a lot with a 4e/5e hybrid, and have tried to make a fighter as effective as 4e but in a more simulationist way.

The best I can come up for for "marking" is "Threat" -- at the end of each turn as a Fighter, each foe you attack gets Threatened.

If you are hit, you must consume your Threat to defend. If your Threat remains on your next turn, it gets consumed to cause extra pain.

For a 5e game, it might has a Threat die that starts at a d4 and goes up.

At the end of each of your turns, you place a Threat die on each foe you have attacked on your turn, and remove all other Threat dice.

When you are hit by anyone, or fail a saving throw, you must consume the Threat die of your choice. You gain a bonus to your AC and/or save equal to the roll, and reduce the damage by the amount of the roll.

If you attack a foe with a threat die, you consume it. Roll it. You gain that bonus to your to-hit and damage on all attacks on the foe. When your turn ends, this bonus goes away.

You can then stack more mechanics on Threat dice.

For example:

As a reaction consume a Threat die on someone who casts a spell; roll it and move up to 5' times the result of the die towards the target. If you are adjacent at the end of this movement, if the threat die roll matches or exceeds the spell level, it is countered; otherwise, you can make a Strength check against 10 plus the spell level, and on success the spell is countered.

Ooh, that's pretty cool. I'd definitely include an option, when a Threatened enemy attacks an ally, to consume their Threat die to reduce their attack roll/damage or boost the ally's save by the amount rolled.

Rather than increasing the size of the Threat die (from d4>d6>d8 etc.), you might make it increase the number of dice (each opponent gets 1d4>2d4>3d4 etc.). That would let the fighter choose between consuming multiple dice for a bigger effect or consuming less dice so there are still some on the opponent. That might be a high level benefit though, to help keep fighters on par with the more quadratic nature of spellcasting.