I'm confused on some points regarding the optional DMG combat rule: Mark(271 or 272 on the DMG)
It states:
"This option makes it easier for melee combatants to harry each other with opportunity attacks.
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 the shocking grasp spell, is preventing it from taking reactions. The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per turn."
If I have multiattack can I mark on every attack? I'm confused on this because usually when a rule wants to limit the trigger to one attack it says "when you take the attack action you can do x, y or z" but this one says "when a creature makes a melee attack".
Another issue I have with this rule is I think it overshadows the attack action because it doesn't have any drawbacks on using it. Everytime I make an attack I can also use Mark, and it doesn't make sense to not use Mark, it's always better than Attack.
You're reading it right. I don't like the Marking rule because it's got a lot of overhead; keeping track of who's marking who just in case an opportunity attack happens isn't worth it for me.
Any and every melee attack can mark a target. Mark is not an action, and does not require the Attack action, only a melee attack. You can still only make one opportunity attack per your turn regardless, but you can mark several targets if you have several attacks, including the opportunity attacks triggered by the marked target. On the other hand, it is almost always better to focus-attack one target until it dies, so spreading out your attacks just to mark is a tradeoff.
Marking targets was a commonly used mechanic in 4e for tank characters to encourage enemies to attack them instead of squishier allies. It doesn't really translate to 5e very well
Marking targets was a commonly used mechanic in 4e for tank characters to encourage enemies to attack them instead of squishier allies. It doesn't really translate to 5e very well
Having used the dmg rule, and the marking abilities of battle master fighters (goading attack) and cavalier fighters, Marking translates perfectly to 5e.
The advantage is nice, but the main point for me is the separation of reaction and opportunity attack. If you have a player with sentinel or defensive duelist, or a 15th level vengeance paladin, using this rule will let them make better use of their feats/abilities.
The Mark optional rule in the DMG details an optional rider to (meaning it happens in addition to the effects of) any melee{weapon/spell/unarmed/improvised) attack (lowercase a), whether that attack hits or misses, made through any source including but not limited to:
The singular or multiple attacks (lowercase a) granted when your character takes the (uppercase a) Attack action, or more rarely Multiattack action (looking at you Circle of the Moon Druids)
Melee attacks granted through Spells (Booming Blade), Bonus action expenditure (Polearm Master), Many features grant attacks as Reactions that arent technically Attacks of Opportunities such as the Mage Slayer Feat's granted melee attack though whether or not you gain any benefit against a Marked creature on the same turn while your reaction is spent is unclear due to the wording of the Mark mechanics (See later). You could Mark a creature when you spend your reaction to make a standard Attack of Opportunity against an unmarked creature,
Melee Spell attacks, which simply I reiterate here, yes, count as melee attacks. Melee spell attacks will explicitly state they are such and usually involve an attack roll. So you could for instance "Mark" a target using the Thorn Whip cantrip at a range of 30ft because the attack is still considered a melee attack and nothing else about the Mark mechanic would disqualify you from doing so.
Because "any opportunity attack made against the marked target doesn't expend the attacker's reaction but the attacker cant make the attack if anything is preventing it from taking reactions" it leaves some room for DM interpretation. Does "already having spent your reaction" count as "anything that would prevent you from taking reactions" . By that interpretation anytime you take any other reaction, the Mark feature shuts down. Or does it mean to say that Attacks of Opportunity against marked targets no longer require you to expend your reaction to make AoO against them so long as you aren't being shut down by an effect that limits your reactions, since the intent/draw of most effects that disable reactions directly translate as a means of disabling your ability to make attacks of opportunity; such as the mentioned incapacitated condition and the shocking grasp spell given in the example which is a spell known as a tool to avoid an attack of opportunity and move away. That interpretation could mean that you could use your reaction to make an attack on another creature's turn that isn't an attack of opportunity and then have that creature still provoke an attack of opportunity based on the mark you placed on it via the attack granted by the reaction attack. Overall I see less of an issue allowing for a rare circumstantial benefit for feats like mage slayer and simplifying the tracking of the Mark mechanic outweighing the slog of worrying whether or not other reactions have suddenly shut down the legitimacy of a player character's marks.
You're reading it right. I don't like the Marking rule because it's got a lot of overhead; keeping track of who's marking who just in case an opportunity attack happens isn't worth it for me.
This is true. If I were to allow this rule, I'd require the player to keep track. But otherwise, the threat of an opportunity attack is usually enough to convince a character to stand their ground without a mark granting advantage.
Sure, but the rules generally suggest that a specific reading supersedes a general reading. So despite marks being under the action section, the specific text of marking clarifies that it costs no Action (big A).
[...]You can still only make one opportunity attack per your turn regardless, [...]
Is this indeed the case? 'once per your turn' seems to effectively translate to 'once per round'. The mark rule simply states "The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per turn." What does "per turn" mean in this context? Most opportunity attacks are made during an opponent's turn - not your own. If on your turn you have marked three opponents (or more) who each on their own respective turns provokes an opportunity attack from you, it is not at all clear to me from the wording that you cannot make an opportunity attack against each such opponent (and still have your reaction available if not already used elsewise). The function of this restriction would essentially be to prevent one from taking multiple opportunity attacks against a single opponent during its turn if, say for example, the opponent left your reach, re-entered it, then left it again all within the same turn. Can someone shed some clarity on this?
This seems like an error as you can't make an opportunity attack per turn as you only have 1 reaction until the start of your next turn. A notorious feature usable once per turn is Sneak Attack, and we know it can be used once per creature's turn in a round. Mark should have instead said
The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per round.
This seems like an error as you can't make an opportunity attack per turn as you only have 1 reaction until the start of your next turn. A notorious feature usable once per turn is Sneak Attack, and we know it can be used once per creature's turn in a round. Mark should have instead said
The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per round.
One of the problems with Thread Necromancy is that we've completely forgotten what was in the original post (which covered this), and I'm being questioned for what I meant back in 2018 (who can say what I was thinking then).
Using the optional Mark ability lets you Mark every enemy you hit with a melee attack, and gives you free opportunity attacks with advantage against Marked enemies (but only once each, essentially).
Reading Opportunity Attack, Reaction & Mark back to back a few times
It now appears as if Mark works the way I always assumed all Opportunity Attacks worked:
If one has Multiattack & Can Successfully Attack several creatures
Using Mark on all creatures attacked would allow you to Opportunity Attack each creature, w/advantage, when they pass by
Without expending your Reaction
However, these Opportunity Attacks would have to be made within a single Round
Now you've got it.
And to your post above, just to clarify, there is no limit to the number of Opportunity Attacks you can make each round except that you only have one reaction and normally have to spend it to make an Opportunity Attack. The Marking optional rule allows you to make Opportunity Attacks without using your reaction, but only once per marked target, and the mark only lasts for one round.
It's sort of mimicking the Combat Reflexes feat tree from 3.5e. Turn your Fighter into an area control powerhouse. I think it's cool when it's one character's "thing," but if everyone and monsters can do it then it's probably super clunky. But idk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm confused on some points regarding the optional DMG combat rule: Mark(271 or 272 on the DMG)
It states:
"This option makes it easier for melee combatants to harry each other with opportunity attacks.
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 the shocking grasp spell, is preventing it from taking reactions. The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per turn."
If I have multiattack can I mark on every attack? I'm confused on this because usually when a rule wants to limit the trigger to one attack it says "when you take the attack action you can do x, y or z" but this one says "when a creature makes a melee attack".
Another issue I have with this rule is I think it overshadows the attack action because it doesn't have any drawbacks on using it. Everytime I make an attack I can also use Mark, and it doesn't make sense to not use Mark, it's always better than Attack.
Are there any points I'm not understanding?
You're reading it right. I don't like the Marking rule because it's got a lot of overhead; keeping track of who's marking who just in case an opportunity attack happens isn't worth it for me.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Any and every melee attack can mark a target. Mark is not an action, and does not require the Attack action, only a melee attack. You can still only make one opportunity attack per your turn regardless, but you can mark several targets if you have several attacks, including the opportunity attacks triggered by the marked target. On the other hand, it is almost always better to focus-attack one target until it dies, so spreading out your attacks just to mark is a tradeoff.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Marking targets was a commonly used mechanic in 4e for tank characters to encourage enemies to attack them instead of squishier allies. It doesn't really translate to 5e very well
Having used the dmg rule, and the marking abilities of battle master fighters (goading attack) and cavalier fighters, Marking translates perfectly to 5e.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
The advantage is nice, but the main point for me is the separation of reaction and opportunity attack. If you have a player with sentinel or defensive duelist, or a 15th level vengeance paladin, using this rule will let them make better use of their feats/abilities.
The Mark optional rule in the DMG details an optional rider to (meaning it happens in addition to the effects of) any melee{weapon/spell/unarmed/improvised) attack (lowercase a), whether that attack hits or misses, made through any source including but not limited to:
Because "any opportunity attack made against the marked target doesn't expend the attacker's reaction but the attacker cant make the attack if anything is preventing it from taking reactions" it leaves some room for DM interpretation. Does "already having spent your reaction" count as "anything that would prevent you from taking reactions" . By that interpretation anytime you take any other reaction, the Mark feature shuts down. Or does it mean to say that Attacks of Opportunity against marked targets no longer require you to expend your reaction to make AoO against them so long as you aren't being shut down by an effect that limits your reactions, since the intent/draw of most effects that disable reactions directly translate as a means of disabling your ability to make attacks of opportunity; such as the mentioned incapacitated condition and the shocking grasp spell given in the example which is a spell known as a tool to avoid an attack of opportunity and move away. That interpretation could mean that you could use your reaction to make an attack on another creature's turn that isn't an attack of opportunity and then have that creature still provoke an attack of opportunity based on the mark you placed on it via the attack granted by the reaction attack. Overall I see less of an issue allowing for a rare circumstantial benefit for feats like mage slayer and simplifying the tracking of the Mark mechanic outweighing the slog of worrying whether or not other reactions have suddenly shut down the legitimacy of a player character's marks.
But Mark is listed under Action Options
This is true. If I were to allow this rule, I'd require the player to keep track. But otherwise, the threat of an opportunity attack is usually enough to convince a character to stand their ground without a mark granting advantage.
Sure, but the rules generally suggest that a specific reading supersedes a general reading. So despite marks being under the action section, the specific text of marking clarifies that it costs no Action (big A).
Is this indeed the case? 'once per your turn' seems to effectively translate to 'once per round'. The mark rule simply states "The attacker is limited to one opportunity attack per turn." What does "per turn" mean in this context? Most opportunity attacks are made during an opponent's turn - not your own. If on your turn you have marked three opponents (or more) who each on their own respective turns provokes an opportunity attack from you, it is not at all clear to me from the wording that you cannot make an opportunity attack against each such opponent (and still have your reaction available if not already used elsewise). The function of this restriction would essentially be to prevent one from taking multiple opportunity attacks against a single opponent during its turn if, say for example, the opponent left your reach, re-entered it, then left it again all within the same turn. Can someone shed some clarity on this?
This seems like an error as you can't make an opportunity attack per turn as you only have 1 reaction until the start of your next turn. A notorious feature usable once per turn is Sneak Attack, and we know it can be used once per creature's turn in a round. Mark should have instead said
The Mark ability gives you an opportunity attack you don't have to spend your reaction on: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/dungeon-masters-workshop#ActionOptions
One of the problems with Thread Necromancy is that we've completely forgotten what was in the original post (which covered this), and I'm being questioned for what I meant back in 2018 (who can say what I was thinking then).
Using the optional Mark ability lets you Mark every enemy you hit with a melee attack, and gives you free opportunity attacks with advantage against Marked enemies (but only once each, essentially).
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Yeah i had a brain fart sorry i should have look it up again as it's not a mechanic i use in any campaign i run or play in.
I’ve read this repeatedly on the last few minutes of my plane ride
I’ll have to go back & read the rules of Opportunity Attack
But it would appear the drawback would be the attacking creature who’s used Mark on a particular target
Could no longer use Opportunity Attack on any other target
Like when another hostile creature is running near or passing through 5 ft. of space of the creature using the Mark action
I’m guessing this represents a highly concentrated focus on the Marked target that the Marker misses all other Opportunity Attacks against anyone else
Does this make sense to anyone else bedsides me? 🤔
Going to read Opportunity Attack now & possibly delete or edit my comment
Okay so you’re only allowed one Opportunity Attack per turn
If you Mark a hostile creature your Opportunity Attack has advantage
However, Marking doesn’t expend your Reaction
So, I’m guessing this is a way to get an Opportunity Attack off & still have a Reaction available
But that unused Reaction can’t be (another) Opportunity Attack
Thoughts? 🤔 💭
Reading Opportunity Attack, Reaction & Mark back to back a few times
It now appears as if Mark works the way I always assumed all Opportunity Attacks worked:
If one has Multiattack & Can Successfully Attack several creatures
Using Mark on all creatures attacked would allow you to Opportunity Attack each creature, w/advantage, when they pass by
Without expending your Reaction
However, these Opportunity Attacks would have to be made within a single Round
Now you've got it.
And to your post above, just to clarify, there is no limit to the number of Opportunity Attacks you can make each round except that you only have one reaction and normally have to spend it to make an Opportunity Attack. The Marking optional rule allows you to make Opportunity Attacks without using your reaction, but only once per marked target, and the mark only lasts for one round.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
It's sort of mimicking the Combat Reflexes feat tree from 3.5e. Turn your Fighter into an area control powerhouse. I think it's cool when it's one character's "thing," but if everyone and monsters can do it then it's probably super clunky. But idk.