|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 6:05PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2001
|
So we all know that 4e is borrowing some concepts from MMO's; some of us think that's a great idea, and some of us are frothing at the mouth and trying not to swallow our own tongues from the sheer outrage. Personally, I think it's a pretty good idea as long as they don't go overboard.
One thing I'm curious about is how people feel about the MMO concepts of "aggro management". For those not familiar with MMO's, here's a brief explanation: the enemies you fight are controlled by the game's AI, so the AI needs to decide who it wants to attack in your group. It attacks whoever it has the most "aggro" (aggression) towards. You generally gain aggression by doing more damage than the rest of the players in your group. This presents a problem: the DPS ("Striker" in 4e terms) does the most damage, but has the weakest armor and lowest hit points, while the Tank ("Defender" in 4e terms) does less damage but has better armor and hit points. You want the Tank to take most of the hits. So, most MMO's give the Tank various "Taunt" abilities, which he can use to add additional aggro and force the emeny to keep attacking him instead of the weak rogues and wizards who are really doing all the damage. This whole "aggro management" game can get fairly complex in the late stages of most MMO's.
Of course, in D&D, all the enemies are controlled by another human, so there isn't really an Aggro meter. To compare, "aggro" and "taunts" usually have no effect in MMO's in player vs player combat; each player attacks whoever he feels like.
Should D&D have some sort of taunt/aggro management? We've seen a bit of it in the PHB2 Knight class. I think some sort of taunt/aggro is necessary if they want to have a real "Defender" role in the game. It would be a little unfair if the DM could just constantly have every monster you come across walk right past the defender and attack the squishy mage. Even from a roleplaying standpoint, it would make sense that almost any creature, from animals to the highly intelligent, would try to first kill the weak, unarmored guy that's blasting them with fire before wasting any time on the slow-moving, heavily armored guy that's attempting to chase them around the battlefield. On the other hand, if the aggro system was too rules-heavy, it would again hurt roleplay as the DM wouldn't have much choice in making the enemy act intelligently; it would be a shame if encounters started looking like MMO encounters, where all the enemies surround the taunting tank and keep attacking his invulnerable defense in vain, while a mage two feet to their left is burning them alive and a priest two feet to their right is continually healing the tank.
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 6:15PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
I am sorry but I have to say, in my opinion, Aggro is itself the absolute WORST aspect of MMO's. now I do not want any real MMO elements in D&D because frankly MMO's just take rules from games like D&D and dumb them down so that you can run them on such a massive scale player-wise. NPC combatant tactics should be adjudicated by the DM, and we do not need a rule structure for that, if you put one in place then that can really hurt the game both ascetically and mechanically.
I see no benefits for using any kind of aggro system as opposed to the more rational use of DM discression. In an MMO the aggro is basically the AI's way of saying 'ok this person is here, and this person may be the biggest threat, what this person is doing is bad' its AI, and AI on a very broad scale to make the game more balanced and make play interesting on that level. This dose not translate well into D&D. They do not factor in personality, specific tactics of more complex NPCs as far as their attack strengths are concerned, the orders of some twisted mage or overlord commanding them. I understand the ability to 'taunt' may be nice in theory and you need aggro for that but in practice it dose not work well both because it dose not factor in many things that the DM may have planned up for the encounter and because, well, I do not think that if a big ogre is charging at the party's mage, the fighter screaming "HAY! YOU! FIGHT ME!" or some such will really draw him away.
Its an ok thought, but in any form of practice it really dose not work.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 6:37PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
"Aggro" is a formulaic creature-management tool in MMOs. It really doesn't have any place in D&D where creatures are expected to assess things intelligently.
Something like the knight's challenge isn't out of line with D&D abilities, but creatures should never be reduced to something along the lines of, "Opponent X has done the most damage to me, therefore I will blindly try to attack it despite the tactical stupidity of doing so."
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 6:39PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2006
|
The term 'aggro' itself makes me want to vomit. It is my impression that there are 3.5 rules for 'taunting,' and those are fine, but to allow someone to 'pull aggro' in a D&D session is disgusting.
I myself have seen no movement towards an MMO feel. I feel it would be rude an inappropriate to express what I think of those who consider the 'Online Play' an MMO.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 6:48PM
#5
|
|
|
I think the fundamental baseline for DMs controlling opponents is that they attack as they see fit, depending on their intelligence. A form of 'aggro management' would be a headache for DMs to keep track of, especially in big fights. Just who does the ogre hate most at the moment, and how will the orc captain respond to that heal the cleric just did on the fighter? Aggro management systems really are best left to MMOs, which can handle all the number-crunching involved.
But taunts can be implemented. Consider the following "The haughty elven swordsman insults you, delivering precisely cutting slurs against your bravery and parentage, making your blood boil with fury. Roll a Wisdom check against DC 10." On a failure "You're so angry that you rush forward to strike at the elf before you know what you're doing." Since people in real life are often provoked into doing what they otherwise wouldn't if they thought about it, it makes sense for PCs to occasionally be affected this way. Especially ones with low Wisdom who are fundamentally violent.
I believe there'll be options that fighters and paladins can use to protect 'squishies' from a foe trying to squish them. Taking a blow meant for the wizard on their shield, weapon or body is conducive to cinematic heroism. Imagine a fighter using his immediate action to dive across a battlefield and take the greataxe blow of an orc trying to slay the wizard. That'd be a highlight in any session.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 6:52PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
There probably are such options - taking a look at the ToB classes, and especially the crusader's disciplines, there are a bunch of martial maneuvers and stances which allow you to cause grief to those who insist on attacking someone other than you.
But they still have the option to try if it makes sense for them to do so, unlike MMO aggro.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 7:05PM
#7
|
|
|
"Aggro" and "Aggro management" and "Taunting" are all only necessary in an MMORPG because there's no thinking human being on the other side directing the monsters, only a computer following strict hardcoded rules.
There is a thinking human being on the other side of the game table, called the Dungeon Master. "Aggro" is entirely based on the DM's judgement. There is no need for a "taunt" skill or ability.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 7:50PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2001
|
Well, a lot of hate towards aggro management; that's to be expected. What are some ways that the "Defender" can fulfill his role without having taunts? I am of the opinion that in core 3.5, he doesn't do a very good job. The only thing a plate-wearing, shield-carrying fighter can do to try and stop people from attacking the wizard is to stand in front of him and get AoO swipes at the creatures that move past him to get to the wizard.
I like Nautilus's idea of being able to use a free action as an "interrupt" to dive across the battlefield and take a hit meant for someone else, but I worry that allowing complex actions out-of-turn like that might make the rules more complex. I also don't think the PHB2 Knight's taunt is enough to cover the whole spectrum of what a "Defender" is expected to do.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 4e should take the freedom of the DM to decide what his creatures do completely away. But some sort of control is necessary if they want to use the concept of "Defender" as it's generally known. As I said, if the DM is trying to play the enemies tactically, it's almost NEVER a good idea for anyone to attack the Defender. The only time anyone would do it is if they had no choice, or if it was hard or dangerous to attack the squishy folk.
Here are some ideas that I've seen in a few games:
- The Defender can choose to "cover" one party member, and gets a chance to intercept any attack meant to hit that party member and take it himself.
- The Defender can slow/stop a melee creature by intercepting it, thus ensuring that it will have to attack him rather than simply taking the AoO and walking right past him.
- The flavor of "taunt" can be changed so that it's not actual taunting; it can be something like causing extra-painful wounds or feigning weakness, anything that might cause a creature to decide to attack the Defender rather than an easier target. Non-taunt "taunts" would be good so that the taunting mechanic isn't solely based around Will saves. The Defender should have some sort of taunt-esque interception that he can use on high Will creatures.
- An improved and simplified version of things like Grapple and Bull Rush would be good; something so that when the ogre is beating up the wizard, the Defender can run over and knock the ogre away from him. Or, perhaps a way to switch places with the wizard without the wizard taking an AoO, throwing the wizard out of harm's way but taking an AoO yourself.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 7:53PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
"Aggro" is a formulaic creature-management tool in MMOs. It really doesn't have any place in D&D where creatures are expected to assess things intelligently.
Something like the knight's challenge isn't out of line with D&D abilities, but creatures should never be reduced to something along the lines of, "Opponent X has done the most damage to me, therefore I will blindly try to attack it despite the tactical stupidity of doing so."
Not all monsters are intelligent. Some act on instict.
Not all DMs are likewise smart enough to make their monsters act intelligently :P
Having some kind of aggro tracking system as an add-on option for some encounters is not a bad idea in itself. It will depend on the implementation.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Sep 03, 2007 - 8:19PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
If your DM is not smart enough to manage something that basic, he should not be a DM.
I am sorry but if you can't even manage what monsters attack what, even based on the tactis of "lets hit the closest guy first' mentality like some goblins may have, you need to go back to study the DMG again. Aggro is just an AI component used because you can't have a person controlling every monster, and its very simplistic to save on coding so that they dont bog down the game.
|
|
|
