One of my players is a cavalier. They get Unwavering Mark which imposes disadvantage on any attacks the target makes other than the cavalier. (Str modifer times a long rest)
Player two is an armorer. When using Thunder gauntlets they can impose the same penalty.
Now I know the cavalier says it drops if another player marks the target but I would read that as using the same ability which the armorer has a different feel to it. This makes for difficult situations where they can impose disadvantage pretty easily on any on target. I have thought of a few things to overcome this but it has been really effective at neutralizing single targets or the 'boss' when other targets.
Eh. This is 5e being sloppy imitating 4e marking mechanics. Sentinel is yet another similar mechanic. I would assume all taunt mechanics block one another.
Sources of advantage(fairy fire, pack tacktic) , eliminating line of sight (fog or darkness), saveing throws (grapel, hold person, tashas hideous loughter...). Beside that have them have their fun.
Here is another fun one: the Grave domain Clerric holding his action to curse the BBEG untill the Paladin attacks. The paladin bonus action smite spell and additionel divine smite on hit. All damage doubled in one big hit.
I would rule that if these 2 effects were placed on the same target the same turn, the second effect would supplant the first. Since as Pantagruel says, they are basically both "taunts." The Mark rule also clearly says that this effect ends if another "mark" is added. Although the gauntlets may not be called a "mark," the effect is clearly the same. So I would not allow stacking.
I mean if they want to just impose straight disadvantage against everyone, there are other ways to get that effect than stacking these two "marks"... let the party use one of those instead if that's what they want. These two abilities are meant to have the enemy attack YOU, and be at disadvantage not doing so -- not to give the enemy disadvantage in general. Using them to give him disadvantage in general violates the spirit of how the rule is intended to work, IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Eh. This is 5e being sloppy imitating 4e marking mechanics. Sentinel is yet another similar mechanic. I would assume all taunt mechanics block one another.
This. The wording of the actual abilities are the same. "If the creature doesn't attack the (ability source) they suffer disadvantage."
In fact, it would be so much clearer and easier to simply put in a Taunted condition, which would state: A creature which has been taunted suffers disadvantage on all attack rolls which do not target the source of the taunt. A creature can only be Taunted by the most recent creature taunting it.
Then abilities and spells would simply state impose Taunted condition on the target. And the definition takes over from there. You know, just like all the other conditions, can't be blinded twice at the same time, can't be "double prone", etc.
In fact, it would be so much clearer and easier to simply put in a Taunted condition, which would state: A creature which has been taunted suffers disadvantage on all attack rolls which do not target the source of the taunt. A creature can only be Taunted by the most recent creature taunting it.
Yup. Nice and clean.
This is how I would rule in this case, if I had to... but I probably won't, since there are no artificers in my campaign.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
And they came by it by accident.
One of my players is a cavalier. They get Unwavering Mark which imposes disadvantage on any attacks the target makes other than the cavalier. (Str modifer times a long rest)
Player two is an armorer. When using Thunder gauntlets they can impose the same penalty.
Now I know the cavalier says it drops if another player marks the target but I would read that as using the same ability which the armorer has a different feel to it. This makes for difficult situations where they can impose disadvantage pretty easily on any on target. I have thought of a few things to overcome this but it has been really effective at neutralizing single targets or the 'boss' when other targets.
Eh. This is 5e being sloppy imitating 4e marking mechanics. Sentinel is yet another similar mechanic. I would assume all taunt mechanics block one another.
Sources of advantage(fairy fire, pack tacktic) , eliminating line of sight (fog or darkness), saveing throws (grapel, hold person, tashas hideous loughter...). Beside that have them have their fun.
Here is another fun one: the Grave domain Clerric holding his action to curse the BBEG untill the Paladin attacks. The paladin bonus action smite spell and additionel divine smite on hit. All damage doubled in one big hit.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]I would rule that if these 2 effects were placed on the same target the same turn, the second effect would supplant the first. Since as Pantagruel says, they are basically both "taunts." The Mark rule also clearly says that this effect ends if another "mark" is added. Although the gauntlets may not be called a "mark," the effect is clearly the same. So I would not allow stacking.
I mean if they want to just impose straight disadvantage against everyone, there are other ways to get that effect than stacking these two "marks"... let the party use one of those instead if that's what they want. These two abilities are meant to have the enemy attack YOU, and be at disadvantage not doing so -- not to give the enemy disadvantage in general. Using them to give him disadvantage in general violates the spirit of how the rule is intended to work, IMO.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This. The wording of the actual abilities are the same. "If the creature doesn't attack the (ability source) they suffer disadvantage."
In fact, it would be so much clearer and easier to simply put in a Taunted condition, which would state: A creature which has been taunted suffers disadvantage on all attack rolls which do not target the source of the taunt. A creature can only be Taunted by the most recent creature taunting it.
Then abilities and spells would simply state impose Taunted condition on the target. And the definition takes over from there. You know, just like all the other conditions, can't be blinded twice at the same time, can't be "double prone", etc.
Usualy they put quite some thoughts into the wording, so maybe they intentionally didn‘t exclude it?
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]Yup. Nice and clean.
This is how I would rule in this case, if I had to... but I probably won't, since there are no artificers in my campaign.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I had to check the date on this one... Such a good laugh. You are being sarcastic, right?