Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Devilbass Dec 01, 2014 11:13:27	So I'm really glad they incoroporated marking as an option in the DMG, but I'm uncertain how exactly I want to use it my own campaigns.  The DMG doesn't outline marking as a fighter-specific, or fighter/paladin-specific option.  It seems to imply that it is something anyone in melee can do.  I'm not really against that, but I don't think that's how I want to use it.  Personally, I want it to be a fighter/paladin-specific mechanic, but I'm, not certain how that would affect the balance of those classes, as it would essentially be enabling an additional attack at advantage each round.     From the DMG, pg 271:   Mark    When a creature makes a melee attack, it can also mark its target.  Until the end of the attacker's next turn, any opportunity attack it makes against the marked target has advantage.  The opportunity attack doesn't expend the attacker's reaction, but the attacker can't make the attack if anything such as the incapacitated condition or shocking grasp spell, is preventing it from taking reactions.  The attacker is limited to one opportnity attack per turn.        One sort of compromise I thought of was that maybe every can mark, but at the cost of their bonus action.  Fighters and Paladins however, can mark without expending a bonus action.  Does that seem a reasonable compromise?  Any other thoughts on the issue of marking being limited to some specific classes or ebing universally useable?
#2 Saelorn Dec 01, 2014 11:16:21	There's nothing wrong with saying that only Fighters and Paladins can mark. It's just one more thing to take into consideration, and it doesn't really upset the balance that much, considering that most critters will try their best to avoid opportunity attacks anyway.
#3 Psikerlord Dec 01, 2014 13:12:34	PArticularly given it is an optional rule, you ought to feel free to modify it however you please. I was wondering about making it fighter/ranger only, or adding it to the protection, dueling and two weapon fighting styles only (ie not archery or GWF).
#4 Saelorn Dec 01, 2014 13:58:20	Psikerlord wrote:
#5 cowleymen Dec 01, 2014 14:31:31	Saelorn wrote:
(Reply to #4) Devilbass	Saelorn wrote:
#7 pauln6 Dec 01, 2014 16:44:14	It looks like it was designed to sync with classes that have access to protection style.  I was wondering if it worth saying that only fighters, paladins, and rangers can use opportunity attacks on someone other than their mark but have not tested the mechanic yet.  Other classes are more likely to have other uses for their reaction anyway so it's a good trade off for them.   i.e. if you choose to mark someone, only trained combat classes can keep an eye on the rest of the battlefield at the same time.
#8 bawylie Dec 01, 2014 17:01:02	I think you're safe not changing it. It's minimally disruptive and likely only to be used by tanky defender types, anyway. On the off chance someone needs it situationally, it's still at their disposal. Change it if you like, but it doesn't seem to have much impact outside of those who would want to use it anyway.
#9 Saelorn Dec 01, 2014 18:49:56	cowleymen wrote:
#10 Glimjack Dec 01, 2014 22:22:24	Have you considered the idea of leaving it open for anyone to use, and then relying on the fact that the only ones who would WANT to use it are the tanky types. That way you give your players option and the potential for interesting stories.   "Hey guys remember that time when the Paladin was nearly assassinated by a kobold assassin and just as he was about to land the killing blow the Gnome wizard through and orb of acid at him and yelled 'Hey you, why don't you pick on someone your own size!'".   Seriously though, I think you'll find that the natural consequences of drawing the ire of the bad guys will have the ability being used pretty much only by the tanks. Also arbitrarily limiting by class prevents some awesome builds. What about elven sword mages, take an Elf Wizard, go Abjurer and take the Tough feat.... Why shouldn't this build be allowed to play as your traditional marking defender?
#11 cowleymen Dec 02, 2014 15:03:16	Saelorn wrote: