Fighters

[Arduin]

There's nothing magical about a fighter who is able to make it harder for those he's engaged in melee with to attack his friends and who is able to make it dangerous for his foes to ignore him once he's initiated melee.

That's not what the power in 4E is.

[jdizzy001]

There's nothing magical about a fighter who is able to make it harder for those he's engaged in melee with to attack his friends and who is able to make it dangerous for his foes to ignore him once he's initiated melee.

That's not what the power in 4E is.

I'm confused. That is the power I was referring to. Granted, it isn't called combat dominance. It is called Combat Challenge and what mbeacom explains is exactly what Combat Challenge is. In fact the first line describing the power or ability is "In combat, it's dangerous to ignore a fighter." The idea being that if the baddy ignores the fighter and attempts to move away or attack an ally, the fighter will thump him.

Regardless, for those interested, a "marked," "taunted," or "challenged" baddy suffers a -2 penalty to any attack that does not include the instigator as the target. Targets of the challenge may be subject to only 1 challenge at a time (so multiple fighters cant stack a huge penalty on a single opponent) and the challenge or mark or taunt lasts until the beginning of your next turn. In addition, if the target tries to move away, or make an attack that does not include the instigator as the target, the instigator may make an attack against the target.

Personally, just to keep things CnC-ish (despite my adoration for the 4e fighter) I would keep it simple and just award the fighter his extra attack early. If the PC wishes, and if it suits the campaign, I would award the fighter a 3rd attack at level 10.

[Arduin]

There's nothing magical about a fighter who is able to make it harder for those he's engaged in melee with to attack his friends and who is able to make it dangerous for his foes to ignore him once he's initiated melee.

That's not what the power in 4E is.

I'm confused. That is the power I was referring to. Granted, it isn't called combat dominance. It is called Combat Challenge and what mbeacom explains is exactly what Combat Challenge is. In fact the first line describing the power or ability is "In combat, it's dangerous to ignore a fighter."

If you are in DIRECT physical combat with someone, it takes care of itself. Any other "at a distace" ability is a magical type thing. Pretty simple.

[jdizzy001]

the fighter's combat challenge is physical. aside from the -2 penalty applied the marked baddy (which could be explained by the fighter yelling from a distance to get the baddy's attention, which distracts the baddy and is represented by a -2 penalty), if the fighter is not adjacent to the marked target his ability can not trigger. there is nothing "magical" about the 4e fighter's combat challenge. now, that doesn't mean a pc cant use magic weapons, feats or other wonderous items to make the ability "magical," but the vanilla 4e combat challenge awarded to fighters is not magicaland is completely physical.

[Fizz]

I can't recall, but if 4E fighter's ability to Challenge a foe requires him to be in melee combat with the target, then i can possibly see it as plausible, but for different reasons. It would not be that the foe becomes less good in combat, it's more that the fighter is defending the other combatants by interfering with the target. But would not that use up the fighters action? And would not such interference would expose the fighter, thereby giving the target a bonus against the fighter?

Now, if the Challenge ability can be used from a distance, then it's effectively magical. Combat is inherently very noisy, so how would a single "yell" or "taunt" cause a foe to be so distracted? Why couldn't any non-fighter "yell" and cause this same distraction? Or what if the target was deaf- does he still get marked? The fighter is effectively "charming" the target into doing something. Ergo, magic. But mundanely pointing at and calling someone out is not sufficient reason for a -2, imo.

I suspect this ability is more the result of 4E wanting a modifier and then finagling an artificial reason for it, rather than having an actual in-world reason for it.

So i find myself leaning towards Arduin's position on this matter.


-Fizz

[Arduin]

the fighter's combat challenge is physical. aside from the -2 penalty applied the marked baddy (which could be explained by the fighter yelling from a distance to get the baddy's attention, which distracts the baddy and is represented by a -2 penalty),

No. Combat is noisy. Mere yelling isn't going to give a person a -2. THAT would be a magical effect

[mbeacom]

There's nothing magical about a fighter who is able to make it harder for those he's engaged in melee with to attack his friends and who is able to make it dangerous for his foes to ignore him once he's initiated melee.

That's not what the power in 4E is.

You're right, there is no power in 4E like that. I'm not talking about any powers in 4E.
I'm talking about a class feature called Combat Challenge. Class features and powers are worlds apart. The class feature I'm talking about (getting to attack those who ignore you during melee) requires direct melee engagement and would port very easily into C&C. No magic required. Basically, for those confused, here's an example.

Lets say I'm a fighter with a big heavy sword. I have a buddy with me, a smallish guy with a dagger. He likes to sneak and stab stuff. We see an orc guarding a chest. I run up to him and start a fight. We're going at it, me and the orc, swords clanging. For some stupid reason, he decides to ignore me and my broadsword and attack my little buddy which means he stops defending against my attacks. That's when I really let him have it. Since he's getting hit by me while he's trying to attack my buddy, it makes it harder for him to do his thing. No magic, just logic. If I"m hacking at a guy who stops paying attention to me, I"m gonna give him a heckuva wallop. Kinda cool if you like that sorta thing.

Also, I'm always hesitant to get worked up about about too much magic in my fantasy RPGs or what qualifies as magic, or who has access to magic. Pretty much every character is magical in some capacity, especially in later levels. The idea of a dude in a suit of armor slaying a 30 foot tall fire breathing dragon is pretty absurd if you think about it. The idea that the same dude might make it harder for an enemy to attack his allies is pretty trivial in comparison.

[Fizz]

Since he's getting hit by me while he's trying to attack my buddy, it makes it harder for him to do his thing. No magic, just logic. If I"m hacking at a guy who stops paying attention to me, I"m gonna give him a heckuva wallop. Kinda cool if you like that sorta thing.

Yes, that's fine. But why would such an ability be unique to the fighter? What if the orc turns to fight you, and your little buddy starts stabbing the orc? Isn't that just as distracting?

So i agree with your logic to a degree- it might make a good generic combat rule, but i don't see what makes this a fighter-specific ability.

-Fizz

[mbeacom]

Since he's getting hit by me while he's trying to attack my buddy, it makes it harder for him to do his thing. No magic, just logic. If I"m hacking at a guy who stops paying attention to me, I"m gonna give him a heckuva wallop. Kinda cool if you like that sorta thing.

Yes, that's fine. But why would such an ability be unique to the fighter? What if the orc turns to fight you, and your little buddy starts stabbing the orc? Isn't that just as distracting?

So i agree with your logic to a degree- it might make a good generic combat rule, but i don't see what makes this a fighter-specific ability.

-Fizz

The idea is that the fighter is quick enough and skillful enough with martial weapons so as to take better advantage of such an opening. As for the reverse, you're right, yes it's distracting and that's covered by combat advantage which anyone can get and which rogues take special advantage of. Each class has its own way of taking advantage of such openings. Combat challenge is the way fighters do it and its based on their melee prowess. Sneak attack is how Rogues do it and its based on their sneaky stabbiness. In either/any case, there's no mind control, no charming, no magic of any kind. The marked target can still do anything, attack anyone he wishes. All that's happening is that the Fighter is able to convince the target (through stance, body language, vocal threat, insult, etc) that he threatens them in some way, so as to cause the marked target to give the fighter some small degree of his attention, which inhibits his abilities slightly. To put it another way, if I'm in combat with a group and I'm tangling with the rogue and I see a bad mofo with a huge sword just off to the side, I'm going to be keeping an eye on him too, especially if he's banging his sword on his shield and pointing at me. Lastly, what needs to be kept in mind is that -2 in 4E is insignificant next to a -2 in C&C. The system math is not compatible in that regard. 4E gives out + and - 2 like candy, one of its problems IMO. So don't compare it to a -2 in C&C which is a pretty significant effect.

[jdizzy001]

The combat challenge is due to relentless aggression. It has nothing to do with magic. Fighter's by their very nature are devoid of magic, that is the whole point of the class. The -2 penalty could be a distraction poised by the fighter, the fear he instills into his opponent by his mere presence, the lasting ring in their ears caused by his rattling attack or even the pain felt from the bruise he just left on them.

The "free" attack awarded a fighter from his mark (should the marked target attempt to take in action that does not include the fighter) is 100% melee. It works no other way. The act of marking occurs when the fighter attacks the target (ranged or melee). Like if the fighter uses a crossbow or a sword to get his opponent's attention and Challenge them to fight, as the ability indicates in its title Combat Challenge.

[mbeacom]

The combat challenge is due to relentless aggression. It has nothing to do with magic. Fighter's by their very nature are devoid of magic, that is the whole point of the class. The -2 penalty could be a distraction poised by the fighter, the fear he instills into his opponent by his mere presence, the lasting ring in their ears caused by his rattling attack or even the pain felt from the bruise he just left on them.

The "free" attack awarded a fighter from his mark (should the marked target attempt to take in action that does not include the fighter) is 100% melee. It works no other way. The act of marking occurs when the fighter attacks the target (ranged or melee). Like if the fighter uses a crossbow or a sword to get his opponent's attention and Challenge them to fight, as the ability indicates in its title Combat Challenge.

Relentless aggression isn't the only thing that could cause it, but that's a good way to describe it if that's what is happening in the narrative. Relentless is a good word though. Because the effect (distraction,fear,whatever) (-2) only lasts a few seconds. If you want to maintain the distraction, you have to keep attacking, over and over. As for my group, we rarely saw it used at range. We were careful to roleplay everything and so it naturally gravitated towards melee, because that always felt more natural (and since the Fighter tends to do melee, that's where it showed up). I'm afraid no amount of explanation will convince anyone who may have already formed an opinion and isn't familiar with the system. It's funny because C&C and 4E tend to have similar problems in that regard. I try to explain C&C to people and they often already have an opinion of it that is not correct because of something they've heard or read (like the 12/18 split makes it almost impossible to achieve success on non-prime attempts). Same goes for 4E. People saying everything is magic even when it's pretty obviously not if you've spent time with the system. Both situations make me sad because both systems do some really cool things in their own way. If people would just spend some time playing them, they'll get to know they're not nearly as scary as they may have read about. I've brought a lot of C&C into my regular 4E game and I would have no problem doing the reverse with something like combat challenge.

[Fizz]

Sneak attack is how Rogues do it and its based on their sneaky stabbiness.

Well, sneak attack is broken anyways. How is it a "sneak" if it happens every round and the target knows it's coming? It's another artificial way of justifying the manipulation of dice, based on the false premise that every class has to be be equal in combat. But that's a whole other discussion.

In either/any case, there's no mind control, no charming, no magic of any kind.

able to convince the target (through stance, body language, vocal threat, insult, etc) that he threatens them in some way, so as to cause the marked target to give the fighter some small degree of his attention,

These two sentences contradict each other. If the target has no choice but to be distracted just because of an insult or vocal threat, then it's magic. If it's not magic, the target should at minimum have a chance to ignore it (saving throw, etc). And if you say the fighter can Mark the target from a distance, then it's absolutely magic. (I don't know if you are claiming it should be possible at a distance or not.) Maybe a rookie fighter would fall for such a "distraction", but seasoned foes would see right through it. And mindless creatures ought to be completely immune to it.

And again, your description is about faking out the target, which has nothing to do with combat ability. Bards are the experts in dealing with others- they are great taunters. Why could a bard not distract the foe then?

Basically, i can see this ability working only if it's about the fighter physically getting in the way of the target- he's trying to deflect the opponent's sword, kick his legs, etc. He's using his combat skill to interfere with the combat skill of another. That's fine.

In which case, it would need a better name: not "Challenge Foe" but rather "Defend Ally" or something like that, to make it clear what is actually happening.


-Fizz

[mbeacom]

Sneak attack is how Rogues do it and its based on their sneaky stabbiness.

Well, sneak attack is broken anyways. How is it a "sneak" if it happens every round and the target knows it's coming? It's another artificial way of justifying the manipulation of dice, based on the false premise that every class has to be be equal in combat. But that's a whole other discussion.

In either/any case, there's no mind control, no charming, no magic of any kind.

able to convince the target (through stance, body language, vocal threat, insult, etc) that he threatens them in some way, so as to cause the marked target to give the fighter some small degree of his attention,

These two sentences contradict each other. If the target has no choice but to be distracted just because of an insult or vocal threat, then it's magic. If it's not magic, the target should at minimum have a chance to ignore it (saving throw, etc). And if you say the fighter can Mark the target from a distance, then it's absolutely magic. (I don't know if you are claiming it should be possible at a distance or not.) Maybe a rookie fighter would fall for such a "distraction", but seasoned foes would see right through it. And mindless creatures ought to be completely immune to it.

And again, your description is about faking out the target, which has nothing to do with combat ability. Bards are the experts in dealing with others- they are great taunters. Why could a bard not distract the foe then?

Basically, i can see this ability working only if it's about the fighter physically getting in the way of the target- he's trying to deflect the opponent's sword, kick his legs, etc. He's using his combat skill to interfere with the combat skill of another. That's fine.

In which case, it would need a better name: not "Challenge Foe" but rather "Defend Ally" or something like that, to make it clear what is actually happening.


-Fizz

I don't see a contradiction. This is not about "faking" anyone. There's nothing to "see through" so I'm not making myself clear somehow. The threat is real. Imagine a fighter focused on you on the battlefield. That would make anyone keep an eye on him, no matter how skillful they are.( And If you want to talk about sneak attack, that's fine, but lets make that it's own thread or something because it seems like you're needing quite a bit of info on that as well). But If I distract you somehow in the real world is that magic? If I threaten you is that magic? No, it's a distraction or threat. Both happen readily in the real world so I can't understand an argument that they somehow require magic in a fantasy world. The distraction/threat are not on their own. They are part of an actual attack against the mark. Nobody CHOOSES to be distracted or to feel threatened by an actual attack. The definition of distract is "prevent (someone) from giving full attention to something." That's all you're doing with your attack because as a Fighter your trained to do it. And even though it's not a fake, Bards do have abilities to do this kind of thing too. THey're just a little different (and more magical, but lets leave that for its own thread as well). But yeah, it's not a fake. Not at all. Not magical in the least. The fighter IS ACTUALLY THREATENING/DISTRACTING the mark. Nothing fake about it. It's really happening. He's basically saying/demonstrating/threatening (as he attacks them), deal with me or you'll regret it (or whatever is appropriate at the time). Keep in mind, this is ONLY triggered by an actual attack. You don't just say something to make it happen. Perhaps the fighter makes a motion after his initial attack like he's about to charge the mark, causing the mark to have to watch him out of the corner of his eye. It's no idle threat either. The fighter has the ability to back it up. THe only real beef IMO is at range with mindless creatures. That's where it does have some issues for me. But overall, it's actually very logical and doesn't require magic of any kind (even though I'm ok with magic in my RPGs.). What it does take is some imagination to visualize what might be happening. Without that, it all falls apart rather quickly. And as for the name being good or bad, lets not get into the weeds here. That's purely subjective since I feel like the name is accurate.

[Dracyian]

Sneak attack is how Rogues do it and its based on their sneaky stabbiness.

Well, sneak attack is broken anyways. How is it a "sneak" if it happens every round and the target knows it's coming? It's another artificial way of justifying the manipulation of dice, based on the false premise that every class has to be be equal in combat. But that's a whole other discussion.

In either/any case, there's no mind control, no charming, no magic of any kind.

able to convince the target (through stance, body language, vocal threat, insult, etc) that he threatens them in some way, so as to cause the marked target to give the fighter some small degree of his attention,

These two sentences contradict each other. If the target has no choice but to be distracted just because of an insult or vocal threat, then it's magic. If it's not magic, the target should at minimum have a chance to ignore it (saving throw, etc). And if you say the fighter can Mark the target from a distance, then it's absolutely magic. (I don't know if you are claiming it should be possible at a distance or not.) Maybe a rookie fighter would fall for such a "distraction", but seasoned foes would see right through it. And mindless creatures ought to be completely immune to it.

And again, your description is about faking out the target, which has nothing to do with combat ability. Bards are the experts in dealing with others- they are great taunters. Why could a bard not distract the foe then?

Basically, i can see this ability working only if it's about the fighter physically getting in the way of the target- he's trying to deflect the opponent's sword, kick his legs, etc. He's using his combat skill to interfere with the combat skill of another. That's fine.

In which case, it would need a better name: not "Challenge Foe" but rather "Defend Ally" or something like that, to make it clear what is actually happening.


-Fizz

There is no contradiction. None whatsoever. This not about "faking" anyone. There's nothing to "see through" so I'm not making myself clear somehow. The threat is real. Imagine a fighter focused on you on the battlefield. That would make anyone keep an eye on him, no matter how skillful they are.( And If you want to talk about sneak attack, that's fine, but lets make that it's own thread or something because it seems like you're needing quite a bit of info on that as well). But If I distract you somehow in the real world is that magic? If I threaten you is that magic? No, it's a distraction or threat. The key component of distraction or threat is that you don't really have a choice. Nobody CHOOSES to be distracted or to feel threatened. The definition of distract is "prevent (someone) from giving full attention to something." That's all you're doing. And even though it's not a fake, Bards do have abilities to do this kind of thing too. THey're just a little different (and more magical, but lets leave that for its own thread as well). But yeah, it's not a fake. Not at all. Not magical in the least. The fighter IS ACTUALLY THREATENING/DISTRACTING the mark. Nothing fake about it. It's really happening. He's basically saying/demonstrating/threatening (as he attacks them), deal with me or you'll regret it (or whatever is appropriate at the time). Keep in mind, this is ONLY triggered by an actual attack. You don't just say something to make it happen. Perhaps the fighter makes a motion after his initial attack like he's about to charge the mark, causing the mark to have to watch him out of the corner of his eye. It's no idle threat either. The fighter has the ability to back it up. THe only real beef IMO is at range with mindless creatures. That's where it does have some issues for me. But overall, it's actually very logical and doesn't require magic of any kind (even though I'm ok with magic in my RPGs.). What it does take is some imagination to visualize what might be happening. Without that, it all falls apart rather quickly. And as for the name being good or bad, lets not get into the weeds here. That's purely subjective since I feel like the name is accurate.

Now with that being said what about mindless creatures? Opponents in a bloodlust rage or being so great and terrible in their heads that they need not focus on the fighter because he is an ant to them?

[mbeacom]

@Dracyian,
Read all the way to the end. I mention it.

[Dracyian]

Must have misread it oops

[mbeacom]

Must have misread it oops

Yeah, I agree the mindless creature is a bit of a sticking point (and why I said that in usual 4E fashion, they take things a bit too far in the name of simplicity). At the very least it requires a bit more roleplay to justify (which I quite like). I've talked to my players and they're comfortable saying that the Fighters attack was targeted in such a way as to impede the marks next action to some small degree. While I may not say that is what I would come up with immediately personally, I certainly don't think it's a stretch that a martial combatant can achieve things besides damage with his attacks, things like impeding his enemies efforts against his allies(represented by a -2 for a few seconds).

[Fizz]

And If you want to talk about sneak attack, that's fine, but lets make that it's own thread or something because it seems like you're needing quite a bit of info on that as well

I am quite familiar with sneak attack in both the 3E and D&D Next guises (less so with 4E). But sadly DDNext permits the rogue a sneak attack virtually every round, which contradicts the very meaning of the word "sneak". But yes, that is another topic.

The threat is real. Imagine a fighter focused on you on the battlefield. That would make anyone keep an eye on him, no matter how skillful they are.

No, that would be a choice. If i want to say that i am focusing on a particular target, regardless of what the fighter is doing, that is my choice. You are taking that choice away. Look at your own words: it "make"s anyone keep an eye on him. You've turned it into a compulsion.

But If I distract you somehow in the real world is that magic? If I threaten you is that magic? No, it's a distraction or threat. The key component of distraction or threat is that you don't really have a choice. Nobody CHOOSES to be distracted or to feel threatened.

You attempting to distract me is not magical. I don't want to be distracted. So at best i should get a saving throw against it. Making it automatic is akin to a magical event. I'm countering your distraction by saying that i am focusing on this other thing. I have a right to ignore you. Hell, what if i'm deaf and you're standing behind me? Do i get marked then? How can i be distracted if i can't see, hear, (or in the case of mindless creatures) understand you? But your ability doesn't make that distinction.

The fighter IS ACTUALLY THREATENING/DISTRACTING the mark. Nothing fake about it. It's really happening.

And the mark has the right to ignore it (or at least try to ignore it), unless there is actual physical interaction.

Your mistake here is treating distraction as automatic. It is not. Distraction depends on a lot of things. First the distraction must be seen or heard. Second it must be understood as something dangerous. Third it assumes the target can't maintain focus.

Why should a trained 20th level fighter be subject to a penalty because he's marked by a 1st level fighter? The 20th level would brush it off as insignificant. Likewise, why would any dragon, or giant be distracted? To them the fighter is insignificant. All they see is a tiny human trying to be brave, they don't know if he has the ability to back it up or not, so why would that bother them in the slightest?

If you're saying they must be distracted, that's magic. If you allow a save against it, then i can live with that.

Think about a sports game- baseball for example. Many a time will fans or players time their yells "SWING BATTER!" just as the pitch crosses the plate, or yell "MINE" just as a fielder is about to catch a fly ball to fake out the player into letting it drop. Is the player distracted? No- he knows what he's doing and is above such things.

The same is true is true of our skilled opponents that you want to mark.

-Fizz

[mbeacom]

The threat is real. Imagine a fighter focused on you on the battlefield. That would make anyone keep an eye on him, no matter how skillful they are.

No, that would be a choice. If i want to say that i am focusing on a particular target, regardless of what the fighter is doing, that is my choice. You are taking that choice away.

But If I distract you somehow in the real world is that magic? If I threaten you is that magic? No, it's a distraction or threat. The key component of distraction or threat is that you don't really have a choice. Nobody CHOOSES to be distracted or to feel threatened.

You attempting to distract me is not magical. I don't want to be distracted. So at best i should get a saving throw against it. Making it automatic is akin to a magical event. I'm countering your distraction by saying that i am focusing on this other thing. I have a right to ignore you. Hell, what if i'm deaf and you're standing behind me? Do i get marked then? How can i be distracted if i can't see, hear, (or in the case of mindless creatures) understand you? But your ability doesn't make that distinction.

The fighter IS ACTUALLY THREATENING/DISTRACTING the mark. Nothing fake about it. It's really happening.

And the mark has the right to ignore it (or at least try to ignore it), unless there is actual physical interaction.

Your mistake here is treating distraction as automatic. It is not. Distraction depends on a lot of things. First the distraction must be seen or heard. Second it must be understood as something dangerous. Third it assumes the target can't maintain focus.

Why should a trained 20th level fighter be subject to a penalty because he's marked by a 1st level fighter? The 20th level would brush it off as insignificant. Likewise, why would any dragon, or giant be distracted? To them the fighter is insignificant. All they see is a tiny human trying to be brave, they don't know if he has the ability to back it up or not, so why would that bother them in the slightest?

If you're saying they must be distracted, that's magic. If you allow a save against it, then i can live with that.

Think about a sports game- baseball for example. Many a time will fans or players time their yells "SWING BATTER!" just as the pitch crosses the plate, or yell "MINE" just as a fielder is about to catch a fly ball to fake out the player into letting it drop. Is the player distracted? No- he knows what he's doing and is above such things.

The same is true is true of our skilled opponents that you want to mark.

-Fizz

I wish I could effectively multiquote this but its not working for some reason.

This for example "And the mark has the right to ignore it (or at least try to ignore it), unless there is actual physical interaction. Your mistake here is treating distraction as automatic. It is not. Distraction depends on a lot of things. First the distraction must be seen or heard. Second it must be understood as something dangerous. Third it assumes the target can't maintain focus."

It's really not automatic. And yes, there IS physical interaction. I've said it before but I'm not sure if you read it or not. Your response makes it sound like perhaps you didn't. In order to mark, you actually have to attack someone. You don't just say "you're marked". So, that pretty much fulfills your requirements. It would be hard not to see or hear someone attacking you. Secondly, it would be hard not to recognize such an attack as being dangerous. Third it doesn't assume the target can't maintain focus. It assumes your attack actually achieved something. I suppose there's some rare case of someone or something being attacked and literally not knowing it happened, but to me, that's far more magical that something getting attacked and thinking, hmm, I don't want that to happen again.

With regard to your other comments, I get what you're saying, but most of it is honestly irrelevant within the rules of 4E. I doubt you want me to go into detail why your examples (20th level vs 1st level fighter, or dragon for example) don't make sense, but I can if you want.

[Fizz]

It's really not automatic. I've said it before but I'm not sure if you read it or not. Your response makes it sound like perhaps you didn't. In order to mark, you actually have to attack someone. You don't just say "you're marked".

But that's not what you said. You said: "able to convince the target (through stance, body language, vocal threat, insult, etc)", none of which requires an attack.

So if you're requiring an actual attack on the foe, then it's gets to be more like what i was describing- an actual physical interaction. To which i had said earlier i can see as plausible.

That said, i think a saving throw could still be justifiable even for a full attack. Maybe the mark decides he wants to fight through the pain. I mean, spellcasters can make concentration checks to cast spells while under duress, it seems our mark should receive the same potential.


-Fizz

[mbeacom]

It's really not automatic. I've said it before but I'm not sure if you read it or not. Your response makes it sound like perhaps you didn't. In order to mark, you actually have to attack someone. You don't just say "you're marked".

But that's not what you said. You said: "able to convince the target (through stance, body language, vocal threat, insult, etc)", none of which requires an attack.

So if you're requiring an actual attack on the foe, then it's gets to be more like what i was describing- an actual physical interaction. To which i had said earlier i can see as plausible.

That said, i think a saving throw could still be justifiable even for a full attack. Maybe the mark decides he wants to fight through the pain. I mean, spellcasters can make concentration checks to cast spells while under duress, it seems our mark should receive the same potential.


-Fizz

Ok, I figured there must be some misunderstanding in there somewhere. I thought I had mentioned the attack requirement prior to that. Such that my mentioning those other things (stance, body language, etc) was in the context of the attack, basically communicating that "there's more where that came from". Anyway, I would not have a problem if a save was required in concept. But as I said, the -2 is pretty insignificant in 4E and requiring a save in addition to avoid something so small would probably be even more rules heavy than 4E already is, and honestly would decrease the effectiveness as to make it statistically useless. As I said, the 4E rules is a very different beast and many of your issues are rectified elsewhere in the math or exist as different abilites for different classes. Spells on the other hand tend to be pretty significant. This isn't fireball we're talking about here, something whose impact is most definitely significant enough to warrant a save of some sort.

[Fizz]

Well i've always been discussing this ability in the context of its inclusion into C&C. I don't play 4E, so anything you say about that i will have no comment. But in C&C, a -2 is not trivial.

I am of the philosophy of if something is possible to resist, a saving throw should be allowed. In the case of marking a foe, i think that an attempted distraction can be overcome. More capable foes will require more potent distractions / attacks to throw them off their game. So a saving throw fits here perfectly i think.

Can other character distract too? I think that is just as easily justifiable too. It could all be done with a SIEGE check. Or maybe fighters can do it too but gain a bonus in some way. There's lots of ways one can go with this mechanically speaking.


-Fizz

[mbeacom]

Well i've always been discussing this ability in the context of its inclusion into C&C. I don't play 4E, so anything you say about that i will have no comment. But in C&C, a -2 is not trivial.

I am of the philosophy of if something is possible to resist, a saving throw should be allowed. In the case of marking a foe, i think that an attempted distraction can be overcome. More capable foes will require more potent distractions / attacks to throw them off their game. So a saving throw fits here perfectly i think.

Can other character distract too? I think that is just as easily justifiable too. It could all be done with a SIEGE check. Or maybe fighters can do it too but gain a bonus in some way. There's lots of ways one can go with this mechanically speaking.


-Fizz

Ah, yes, there it is, were just talking past each other. I was not trying to justify the identical 4E implementation within C&C. I was just trying to explain why it exists in 4E as it does. Were I to port it into C&C, I would remove the range component and grant a save of some sort (or a successful SEIGE check by the marker). I would add a caveat that mindless (or raging) creatures would be immune. So I think we're on the same page there.

[Fizz]

If only the world's nations could find such understanding and common ground as we have done today... Heh.

-Fizz

[mbeacom]

If only the world's nations could find such understanding and common ground as we have done today... Heh.

-Fizz

Maybe if more people played C&C, we'd see more of it.

[Lord Dynel]

I know I'm late to the party...sue me.

Reading this thread got me thinking about a recent, and impulse, purchase I made - the Everquest RPG Core Rulebook. I sometimes pick odd stuff like this up, if the price is right because I like to mine ideas from various sources. In there, there's a new skill - Taunt. It's d20 but there's no reason it couldn't be adapted to a fighter ability...

Challenge (Charisma): The fighter can issue a challenge to a foe in an attempt to force it to attack him. There are many factors that might inhibit the foe from succumbing to the challenge, such as: if the foe is attacking someone else, if it's of animal intelligence, if it doesn't understand the challenge, or if it is tactfully unwise to attack the fighter. The fighter makes a Charisma check (with the base CL being the creature's HD). If successful, the foe will turn its attention to the fighter for at least 1 round. The CK may rule that the foe will actively pursue and attack the fighter, turning its attention to him, but will attack the fighter as intelligently and effectively as it can.

Adjustments to the CL are as follows (these are cumulative):
Foe is attacking someone else, +4
Foe is of animal intelligence, +2
Foe doesn't understand the challenge, +2
It is tactfully unwise to attack the fighter, +4

The fighter may taunt in the same round as he makes an attack (but not a move and attack) and if he does he gets a +2 to his roll. This is not a magical effect, but creatures immune to mind-influencing effects are immune to the challenge, as are foes who are pacifistic in nature and targets who are actively fleeing combat.

Were I to introduce something like this to the fighter, I'd probably do something to this effect. Just my two cents.

[koralas]

Sneak attack is how Rogues do it and its based on their sneaky stabbiness.

Well, sneak attack is broken anyways. How is it a "sneak" if it happens every round and the target knows it's coming? It's another artificial way of justifying the manipulation of dice, based on the false premise that every class has to be be equal in combat. But that's a whole other discussion.

I think mbeacom actually meant Back Attack (C&C) not Sneak Attack. Back Attack requires the attacker to be unaware of the thief about to make the attack. Thus you can't do it round after round, and must retreat, re-establish anonymity and sneak up again to make another Back Attack.

Sneak Attack is completely different in C&C, Sneak Attack lets the soon to be victim know the thief is there, they could be holding a conversation, shaking hands, etc. then the thief attacks with surprise and the relevant bonuses. This, however, can only be attempted once, since the next round the victim will know he is under attack and will be defending.

[Arduin]

No, that would be a choice. If i want to say that i am focusing on a particular target, regardless of what the fighter is doing, that is my choice. You are taking that choice away. Look at your own words: it "make"s anyone keep an eye on him. You've turned it into a compulsion.


-Fizz

Which is why it is a magical effect not, mundane. But, 4E was designed to be a cross between P&P and a video game. That was the original design spec.

[Snoring Rock]

Ok, so back to the original thought. Has anyone just simply given an additional attack at 5th level? I do not want to devalue the Barbarian Whirwind by just giving the fighter another attack. The barbarian able to hit several opponents once each, and the fighter able to hit one opponent several times in around.

Is the fighter really under-powered or not doing enough damage at 5th level without an extra attack? And if I granted the extra attack to the PC's then they must face the same coming at them. Just how far off can I throw the game when the orc leaders get two attacks as well?

[mbeacom]

No, that would be a choice. If i want to say that i am focusing on a particular target, regardless of what the fighter is doing, that is my choice. You are taking that choice away. Look at your own words: it "make"s anyone keep an eye on him. You've turned it into a compulsion.


-Fizz

Which is why it is a magical effect not, mundane. But, 4E was designed to be a cross between P&P and a video game. That was the original design spec.

There's simply nothing magical about it. You'll have to reread the thread I think, where I explain his understanding of the ability (and the portion of it you quote) was inaccurate (because no choice is taken away by using this ability, there is no compulsion of any kind). One might be able to make a valid argument that the ability is poorly written, or confusing, or without enough exceptions, but its not a magical power and the design spec of being a game that easily ported over to a digital medium is irrelevant. Anyway, we've deviated enough I think.