I'm getting, like, unhealthy amounts of mad, clicking on that broken link.
What about this idea? "If the player can do it, so can the DM."
So yeah. Let me know how awesome the Knight and Sharpshooter subclasses are when your wizard or cleric has been marked by a 12th level Knight with the Mage Slayer feat while your group is getting peppered with arrows from the 12th level Sharpshooter with the Sharpshooter feat (~sigh~) that is doing 3 attacks for 1d8+23 damage per hit. Enjoy!
My problem with this is that it is something that a DM should decide through role-playing. It shouldn't be forced on his NPCs because the player has a mechanic that says he must become enraged (or whatever).
Edit: And again you are looking at it from a player using it on the BBEG. What happens if the BBEG uses it on a player? Do I tell the player, "Nope, I don't care that your character is always calm. My guy made him angry. No saving throw."
What about this idea? "If the player can do it, so can the DM."
A sub-class is prettymuch a modular option, in itself. If you want a non-casting Knight (concept) you can take a Background that touches on it, if you want a mounted-combat-oriented sub-class there's already the Cavalier. (If you wanted your "Knight" to cast spells, you already had the Paladin - including the Oath of the Crown covering a similar function to this one).Completely incorrect. My opinion is that there should be options for everyone. What I don't agree with is how these options are being prescribed. In this case, I'd rather see a Knight sub class that is modular and not exclusive to a particular style of play without modification.
Full class.With that said, there is no need to be angry. At this rate, I do predict that 4e justice warriors will get their warlord subclass. It's only mater of time now.
Lord Twig said:What about this idea? "If the player can do it, so can the DM."
When has that ever not been a thing???
Yep! That's the point. It has always been a thing. I was just pointing out that we should always look at it from both angles. Not just "Here's what I can do with it!" But also, "Here's what it could do if it was used against me!"
If you wouldn't like the results of the second statement, then it might not be such a good thing after all.
Why do you assume people won't like the results of the second statement? Isn't combat supposed to be challenging?If you wouldn't like the results of the second statement, then it might not be such a good thing after all.
Yep! That's the point. It has always been a thing. I was just pointing out that we should always look at it from both angles. Not just "Here's what I can do with it!" But also, "Here's what it could do if it was used against me!"
If you wouldn't like the results of the second statement, then it might not be such a good thing after all.
The fun thing is that, in D&D & especially in 5e, the DM decides everything, anyway. Want someone immune to the mark? Make him immune to fear. Don't want him also immune to a spell that causes fear? Make him immune to non-magical fear. Just decide on the spur of the moment that a mark shouldn't work on a given target in a given circumstance? Rule that way.My problem with this is that it is something that a DM should decide through role-playing. It shouldn't be forced on his NPCs because the player has a mechanic that says he must become enraged (or whatever).
Not that a WILL save makes a big difference much of the time (one of the annoying things about modern D&D is that it's way too easy for high level archetypal-hero-type PCs to end up with low WILL/WIS).And again you are looking at it from a player using it on the BBEG. What happens if the BBEG uses it on a player? Do I tell the player, "Nope, I don't care that your character is always calm. My guy made him angry. No saving throw."
Not that a WILL save makes a big difference much of the time (one of the annoying things about modern D&D is that it's way too easy for high level archetypal-hero-type PCs to end up with low WILL/WIS).
But, it doesn't really matter how you conceptualize the mark. It doesn't work against creatures immune to fear, which does imply (unnecessarily, IMHO), that it works on emotions (fear being the only emotion D&D has many mechanics for or immunity to). Your calm character can be calmly 'cautious' of the marking BBEG (and, face it, was probably going to be attacking him anyway, in which case the mark does nothing - I mean, how often is the BBEG there to protect someone else?)