if you want to get technical then yes its an 'aggro mechanic'. but really you could call it 'common sense' and be right too.what I am saying is that you don't need a system laid out, just let the DM make a snap judgment. That was my point the whole time. You don't need an aggro mechanic written up in a book, just go ahead and pick the first target that comes to mind.
if you want to get technical then yes its an 'aggro mechanic'. but really you could call it 'common sense' and be right too.what I am saying is that you don't need a system laid out, just let the DM make a snap judgment. That was my point the whole time. You don't need an aggro mechanic written up in a book, just go ahead and pick the first target that comes to mind.
Common sense isn't.
And if you say that it can be done via a snap judgment, then why bother having so many of the other tables in the game? Why not give away treasure as part of a snap judgment? Why not give away XP via snap judgement?
The point is that mechanics help DMs do their job. They don't have to be slaves of the mechanics, but they sure can get ideas out of them.
Yep, pretty much. A DM who can't figure out that a magic-eating ooze (see: Arcane Ooze) is going to go after the biggest source of magic nearby is someone who shouldn't be running a game.
You don't need an "aggro points rule" system for that. You don't need a "deaggro" skill, you don't need a "taunt" skill.
In an MMORPG, creatures that 'aggro' on someone will inevitably ignore all other possible targets unless distracted. In a face to face game, with a real person controlling all the monsters, the only time this is likely to happen is when the DM is running mindless creatures in combat.
Yep, pretty much. A DM who can't figure out that a magic-eating ooze (see: Arcane Ooze) is going to go after the biggest source of magic nearby is someone who shouldn't be running a game.
What if you've got four highly magical targets? How do you pick one then?
And what of the temptation to do something that is against the instincts of the creature, but would serve a much better purpose tactically?
DM tactical decision-making is never perfect. Guidelines can help.
In an MMORPG, creatures that 'aggro' on someone will inevitably ignore all other possible targets unless distracted. In a face to face game, with a real person controlling all the monsters, the only time this is likely to happen is when the DM is running mindless creatures in combat.
Funnily, I know of very few encounters in D&D that end with the majority of the bad guys retreating alive (adventures often don't even have "What you can learn from prisoners" sidebars). More often, they stand, fight, and die to the last man, which is frankly contrary to what intelligent creatures do when faced with a combat situation.
Which isn't actually very different from your standard MMOG fare. So much for the theory that playing D&D automatically results in more intelligently run encounters.
What if you've got four highly magical targets? How do you pick one then?
And what of the temptation to do something that is against the instincts of the creature, but would serve a much better purpose tactically?
DM tactical decision-making is never perfect. Guidelines can help.
You just pick. so what if they are not perfect, the monster is not perfect. It dosent matter. a monster should not know exactly how your party works anyways. its not like they hand out docies on the people coming by that day. If the thing is of animal intellect it will probably attack the first threat, as animals do, if it is smarter, then it probably has its own personality, and if you cant guess from the way the creature fights in fiction and stuff, then make it up and call it good. one of the perks of being DM. who cares if it wont match up just perfectly? honestly I dont know a single DM that would even think of bothering with such a thing.
Funnily, I know of very few encounters in D&D that end with the majority of the bad guys retreating alive (adventures often don't even have "What you can learn from prisoners" sidebars). More often, they stand, fight, and die to the last man, which is frankly contrary to what intelligent creatures do when faced with a combat situation.
You have not seen kobolds stare into the face of Thriv Scaleclaimere now have you? hehehe. In our game we do have people run though, if it fits, run for help, run to man some ballista, the point is though that it is so easy to adjudicate what a monster will do, that making a system for it just so you get it 'just right' is pointless, overly complex and really im quite sure you are only arguing for it to try and be right about something. besides since when do you need a 'sideboard' for anything? just Roleplay it, wing it as you go. dont worry so much about the particulars.
Which isn't actually very different from your standard MMOG fare. So much for the theory that playing D&D automatically results in more intelligently run encounters.
You just totally lost me. The point I am making is that you don't need such an overly complex system, If a fighter is attacked by a gold dragon first out of the party he is not going to ask 'why' he is going to try and put a sword in it. Being a DM is AT LEAST as much art as it is science. sure you can write up an algorithm for aggro if it is really that vital, but chances are you could wing it, heck you could pick your first attack at random, and nobody will question why. the game will go on in the same way for the most part, and only you will know that you just picked at random.
But this dose prove to me you have a chip on your shoulder about me.
Again, if that's your philosophy, why not just give away any treasure you want? Why not do anything you want? Ditch the rulebooks and guidelines. Just do what you want.
That's the point of the rules and mechanics anyway: Give guidelines so you don't have to "Just pick".
'just right' is pointless, overly complex
I thought you wanted complexity? :P
However, as I said, this is merely a proof of concept. I'm sure with refinements it can be made much simpler, and more elegant.
But this dose prove to me you have a chip on your shoulder about me.
You are free to have your own delusional beliefs. But annoying you brings me no comfort. Showing counter-proofs against standard Tabletop Elitist beliefs (which you are supplying in droves) does however :D.
There are no counter points here, though I find it funny you call me delusional.
The fact of the matter is the rules are guidelines, nothing more. Its ok to throw out rules, or make them up, especially when you are the DM. Honestly I don't understand the first part of your statement at all, because frankly whats the fun of DMing if you make everyone follow a strict path and dont adapt and change. The rules are goign to get pushed or have points where they don't apply, or times when they don't matter. Part of being a good DM is knowing when to use the rules, and when to SAY you are using the rules and making it up to save a playere/give a player the shaft/ext. its been done by countless DMs all over the world, so I am not alone. It is even mentioned in the DMG.
Still, you provide no valid argument, you simply say my opinion about 4e is dumb because it dosent fit what you think. I am the 'tabletop Elitist' and therefor the evil monster you have to slay. At this point though its gotten past the point of infuriating, and flipped over to comical, especially on this thread. So far all you have proven is that you are a slave to the rules rather than using them as tools, and thats OK, just keep in mind not all of us play that way.
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.
"Tank" is a term that I think belongs to the MMO. "Defender" is a stupid term 4E designers came up with so they could avoid using "tank" while saying the exact same thing. However, for people who optimize and play strategic 3.5E, this concept boils down to "battlefield control," which isn't limited to the melee combatant. For example, a vanilla wizard is excellent at serving this role because he can cast quickened silent images and solid fogs since he's got overland flight and maybe an invisibility up on himself.
But the melee battlefield controller serves as a good party member because he can often soak up attacks with high AC, high HP, and possible DR as well as threatening AoOs with a high attack bonus. Consider the following, a generic, core-only, low level guy: Human, 16 STR, 16 CON, fighter 2/Barb1 wielding a spiked chain. Rage, get enlarge person'd by the wizard. Now you've got 22 STR, 20 CON, and threaten AoOs anywhere in a FIFTY FEET BY FIFTY FEET square. Anyone comes in, you trip them. Now your party is safe.
Isn't that so much better, more complex, more satisfying, more realistic, and more elegant than a stupid numerical aggression management system that relies on continuous healing to work?
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.
No. 3.5E does it pretty well if you know the options available to you. The problem is that most newbies and casual players don't. D&D has to be more friendly to casual players, not more idiotic to everybody.
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.
Bingo. The whole point of battlefield control is to limit mobility and ability to attack the party as a whole, and the squishies in particular.
Example: It is pretty stupid that in WOW, the warrior sits there and takes hits for the length of the battle, soaking up damage and heals. How stupid does an ancient dragon who is secretly ruling as the regent of the human kingdom have to be if she just sits there and takes it up the butt from all the rogues and mages while the one guy she keeps whacking is not losing any life due to heals?
Meanwhile, in D&D, the dragon would go straight for the mage. Luckily, the mage would have the ability (unlike his WOW brethren) to throw up a quickened silent image of a wall in front of him, run to the side, and throw out a solid fog onto the dragon, effectively immobilizing him for a few rounds. The druid meanwhile, summons some dire lions or whatever, and the dragon has to chew through the meatshields while he's getting out of the fog. That's how you control the battlefield without idiotic numerical aggro systems.
- 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.
Sure. As long as it involves tactics instead of who has the higher number.
- 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.
Requires roleplaying: DM has to decide whether or not the creature takes the bait, rather than having the mechanics take care of it.
Edit: What I meant above was that you're trading a valuable resource defined in game mechanics (feat or level) for a benefit that depends on DM roleplaying. Ripe for player-DM friction, since you can't anticipate how much of a benefit you're going to get and you might get a lot less than you'd hoped.
- 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.
I like the way 3.5E did it: Figure out how to beat that kind of stuff with the tools available to you. Wizards always kept a dimension door memorized so they could escape a grapple, since it didn't have a somatic component. With the Miniatures Handbook supplement, Benign transposition was a cheaper, and sometimes more vicious alternative. It does the exact thing you describe: switch places.
This argument reminds me somewhat of the old social skill brawls. While a DM is always free to houserule anything they want, and remove anything they think is silly, WotC publishing some form of guideline is often very useful. Look at WBL. No-one says that all parties must slavishly conform to expected wealth, but a DM can, by quickly refering to the table, see what they're doing. If they want the PCs to be poorer than the expected value to reduce the Christmas Tree effect, the WBL guidelines can tell him how to do that. It also tells him to make sure he is careful with ideas from published sources, as parties will be expected to be able to afford some means of flight by an item, rather than waiting a day and burning all the wizard's 3rd level slots, or losing a PC to a poor Balance or Climb check. The existence of vague "attack priority" guidelines allow the DM to consciously vary from them, rather than blindly negating a party member. If no-one wants to fight with the fighter, and everyone can get around the fighter without fighting him, what good is the fighter?
Saviour of the YMtC Mushroom Kingdom (A Kavu Overlord™ contest)! Avatars (yes, both of them) are Justin from El Goonish Shive. Check it out at www.egscomics.com
What if you've got four highly magical targets? How do you pick one then?
And what of the temptation to do something that is against the instincts of the creature, but would serve a much better purpose tactically?
DM tactical decision-making is never perfect. Guidelines can help.
You are completely wrong. Your example of the unintelligent ooze with a clear, definable, easy-to-implement set of instincts is highly misleading. What about a dysfunctional group of bandits, one of which is a necromancer with a pair of zombies and a girlfriend/cohort (also a necromancer with her own skeletons)? They are jealous of the bandit leader, an evil druid who never speaks. The group's MO is that whoever lays the final blow on a guy gets the loot off that body. They all react to every other group member's actions dynamically in the course of battle, and ultimately serve themselves, except for the two lovers. Now tell me how you write an aggro formula for that. Now tell me how you do it for an infinite number of similarly complex encounters, while keeping the general framework cohesive, easy-to-use, and appealing for the average DM.
You can't. Don't be stupid.
Which isn't actually very different from your standard MMOG fare. So much for the theory that playing D&D automatically results in more intelligently run encounters.
I've played my share of WOW and a little bit of some other MMOs. I'm not an anti-MMO crusader. I'm just a realist, so here's some realism for you: People make highly complex decisions every day that can be crudely modeled mathematically but are more quickly and efficiently done by the human brain. It's a cost-benefit thing, and the costs of creating a bloated aggro system for the infinite possibilities of human and (supposedly) inhuman psychological motivations are astronomic.
