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.
As soon as I wrote the above, I knew someone was going to say "spiked chain trip monkey!" I almost actually went back and edited my post. Basically, I think spiked chain trip monkey is an incredibly silly looking thing that hurts the believability of combat. I don't like the idea that to be a defender, you have to wield a ridiculous chain with spikes on it, and especially not that you need to be polymorphed into a war troll or some such your whole life. I also don't enjoy the image of a battlefield full of klutzes that spend the entire time prone due to the hypersonic whirling of the chain. To me, this looks much sillier than the dragon that keeps attacking the taunting warrior even though the mage is doing more damage to it.
I think Defenders should be able to do a fairly decent job of defending with any sort of weapon, and with no spells cast on them. Actually, I think they should probably be better at defending people when they have a shield, and probably not so good if they've got a weird giant spikey length of chain.
Plus, battlefield control is more in the domain of the Controller. Keeping monsters prone is much more a "Crowd Control" thing in MMO terms, not a Tank thing. In fact, most of the time, spiked chain trip monkeys don't entice creatures to attack them; if something's easily trippable, it just spends its entire time on the ground prone taking AoO's until it dies.
Sure. As long as it involves tactics instead of who has the higher number.
This is always something that bothers me, but figuring out or reading off of the Char Op boards that the spiked chain is the best weapon and then using it for the rest of your D&D career isn't really "tactics". There's a little tactical thought in first figuring out which weapon is the best, but afterwards it's just a matter of the DM needing to change all of his encounters to ensure that everyone's not just tripped the whole time. I think the trip mechanic is fairly terrible and scales very badly. I would much rather have something simpler but more balanced at various power levels.
Look into the knight in the DMG2, he can draw other foes to fight him instead, and indeeed he is based around the 'controller' idea. other than that though I think mentioning the spiked chain offset an otherwise accurate image. Take the dwarven defender. Put two or three of them, or indeed two or three people around a person standing in a corner. That is a 'defender ' tactic right there, to get at the person behind them they have to go though them. In real combat protection is not about yelling at someone until they come over to fight you. Making sure you have a decent wall of bodies, or hide the person in a spot where they are easily defended is key, otherwise it is hard realistically. There are spells though that can help protect someone, usually by taking half the damage you do on yourself, but again there really is no reason for 'aggro' in that case. Its alot more intuitive and realistic to just do it by common sense and tactic, Yes a guy with a shield has higher AC and make you a better wall against melee, but really taunts are of little use on the battlefield. if someone would provoke attack for some reason, the best tactic is throw them behind you out of the way and attack anyone who trys to get past.
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.
Let me introduce you to a concept called a fallacy. The one you a seem to primarily be using is the straw man. Basically, you are ignoring his actual stated position and bringing up distorted example of his position.
This is very much like cheating at cards. You're not playing fair. You can't win by arguement so you exaggerate his arguement and say his argument is useless because of your distorted and inaccurate example.
Having said that, I don't think your point of view is out of line. Just your tactics.
Zinegata wrote:
That's the point of the rules and mechanics anyway: Give guidelines so you don't have to "Just pick".
I agree.
That said, I am not sure if a mechanic is necessary. I think a GM can make some reasonable assumptions by reading the monster's entry and deciding from there.
In the example of the the magic eating ooze:
If you have 4 targets equally brimming with magic, the ooze goes for the nearest one. It is hungry and unintelligent. It doesn't have the capacity for anything beyond, "hunger, food, and more food."
If on the other hand, you have one clearly ahead? Maybe you have a situation with a fighter in magical plate, shield, sword, and boots, where everyone else only has a ring of feather fall, or a minor cloak. It goes after the fighter because he is more food, which is better than only a little food.
This changes when you look at creatures like the rust monster. It likes ferrous metals in preferance to every other metal. That means iron and steel. But in the creature notes, it mentions it will stop for any food thrown in its direction.
So, who has the most ferrous metal? Usually the fighter type. If he's smart he drops his sword or shield (whichever is cheaper to replace) and starts to run. The rest of his party attack the rust monster from range. Kite the monster as necessary. Hopefully it won't like the abuse it's taking and run away to find a nicer meal that doesn't hit so hard.
In the case of intelligent monsters, it gets a bit more tricky. With dragons it will depend on who it determines is the bigger threat.
If the caster just stands there and casts protective spells on itself while the fighter is beating on it, obviously the fighter is the bigger threat. If the dragon has room to fly only ranged characters (including mage types) are a threat. If the dragon nearly kills the fighter and/or wizard in one stroke and the cleric heal them, maybe the cleric is the real threat.
Tactically, a dragon is smart enough to use terrain to his advantage. Even if that means he plops down in the center of the party so he can take swipes at everyone as necessary.
It doesn't need to be perfect, nothing in a game ever is. The goal is to get as close as necessary without being overly complex. Sure that means the DM is going to have to think. Sure they will occasionally make mistakes. But then, that's okay. Creatures make mistakes too.
You can attempt to be insulting and call me an elitist if you like, but I've played a number of MMOs and I enjoy them. I played EQ for 6 years, EQ 2 for 4 months, Horizons for 6 months, CoH/CoV for 14 months, Star Wars Galaxies for a while, and currently play WoW where I am up to 2 years. Some have been consecutively and some concurrently. Sometimes I even go back after months or years away. This doesn't even include the MMO's I've beta tested or played free trials for.
I just don't think an agro system is necessary for a tabletop game. I think it would add more complexity, when the DM can make a judgement call. If he's got a monster book and/or creativity he should be able to figure it out or think on his feet. Heck, he could even come up with something story wise why a particular creature attacks a particular person. "They hate the color red, man. Run!"
When all else fails, he can use a die and roll it. Or have the players roll a die and the closest (or furthest) from the number in his head get whacked.
As soon as I wrote the above, I knew someone was going to say "spiked chain trip monkey!" I almost actually went back and edited my post. Basically, I think spiked chain trip monkey is an incredibly silly looking thing that hurts the believability of combat. I don't like the idea that to be a defender, you have to wield a ridiculous chain with spikes on it, and especially not that you need to be polymorphed into a war troll or some such your whole life. I also don't enjoy the image of a battlefield full of klutzes that spend the entire time prone due to the hypersonic whirling of the chain. To me, this looks much sillier than the dragon that keeps attacking the taunting warrior even though the mage is doing more damage to it.
And as soon as I gave the example, I knew someone was going to call it an anomaly, haha. Okay, fine, take it out. Use a greatsword. You've got a strike zone ten feet out, and as long as you position yourself correctly, get AoOs before anyone can get to your casters.
Alternatively, wield a spear, or halberd, or something else. You've got a deadzone ten feet in, but nobody can reach you without going through your strike zone, and as soon as they come in, you stab them or trip them. Next round, you bull rush them out/drop your spear for a greatsword/etc. Or your friendly neighborhood cleric stays inside to protect your deadzone. Whatever. Tons of things to do without resorting to spiked chains.
I think Defenders should be able to do a fairly decent job of defending with any sort of weapon, and with no spells cast on them.
If they're already good at it, what's the point of a buffer party member then? Also, opening up options with spells or items or feats or prestige class abilities or other cool synergies is a rewarding part of the game. If you don't reward doing that, why should anyone care about making the right choices to make his character better at tactical combat? If he's got all the tools he'll ever need, he can just take Silver Palm and Toughness as feats and take fighter levels all the way down.
Actually, I think they should probably be better at defending people when they have a shield, and probably not so good if they've got a weird giant spikey length of chain.
Sure, I agree with this. But that's because of 3.5E's subtle and difficult-to-correct design flaw--that improving your offense is always the best way of improving your defense. You almost always want to completely rock the other guy first so he can't even do anything to you, rather than bunker down.
Plus, battlefield control is more in the domain of the Controller. Keeping monsters prone is much more a "Crowd Control" thing in MMO terms, not a Tank thing. In fact, most of the time, spiked chain trip monkeys don't entice creatures to attack them; if something's easily trippable, it just spends its entire time on the ground prone taking AoO's until it dies.
This is the design flaw of the MMO. The tank's functional role is to prevent damage to the rest of the party. However, his only way of doing this is to make the enemies attack him. In D&D, you can prevent party damage a billion different ways, and they're all cooler than "GROG TANT, GROG TAEK HIT, GROG TAEK HEEL."
In WOW, very few raid fights (at least back when I quit) showcased how crowd control could be an effective way of preventing damage. Razorgore was one, but that was only with the adds rather than 'gore himself. The problem was that every boss of consequence was immune to everything. Regular fights were much cooler, actually. Being a lone warlock with a pet, you could come across four mobs, dot all, fear one guy off, have your VW tank two, drain tank the fourth, re-dot, sack the void, drain tank the third, juggle fear the second, drain the first, and finish off the last guy, make yourself a new healthstone, blah blah. That was cool.
Anyway, WOW PVE group fights were invariably about coordination and timing rather than tactics and strategy. PVP was where tactics and strategy actually played a role. PVP also ignored aggro. Coincidence? I don't think so.
This is always something that bothers me, but figuring out or reading off of the Char Op boards that the spiked chain is the best weapon and then using it for the rest of your D&D career isn't really "tactics". There's a little tactical thought in first figuring out which weapon is the best, but afterwards it's just a matter of the DM needing to change all of his encounters to ensure that everyone's not just tripped the whole time. I think the trip mechanic is fairly terrible and scales very badly. I would much rather have something simpler but more balanced at various power levels.
I suppose. I've never played a spiked chain tripper. My meleers are much cooler. Favorite relied on rampaging bull rush/knockback/shock trooper/leap attack combo with just a greatsword to ruin enemies. Not as defensive as the chain tripper, but I loved the synergy.
I can see why the "aggro" mechanic is useful since really, there are only two "tank/defender" classes in the game. Namely the crusader and the knight.
The spiked chain fighter suffers from two problems. It needs a certain weapon (a weapon, I might add, that many people think is just plain stupid. Hell not even MMORPGs use that weapon as it doesn't look goog) and it needs to be enlarged/polymorphed.
Personally, I prefer the crusader's use of manoeuvers as they seem better and more believeable to many people than the knight shouting out a taunt.
However, I think some form of mechanic that allows a person to actually play bodtguard is needed. The tank/defender role may've been named by MMORPGs but the *IDEA* of such a role is classic and existed long before EQ and Ultima Online.
I don't think an actual aggro mechanic is needed since that is more paperwork on the part of the DM and hopefully 4E makes combat less burdensome.
The problem with the use of AoO is that there is nothing *forcing* the monster to focus on the AoO-guy over the other guy. Sure, the monster takes a hit but intelligent monsters can do tradeoffs and if the guy wielding a sword in front of me is only doing 1 pt of damage and the guy behind is doing 10 pts of damage, the monster can and should decide "ok, sword wielder I can safely ignore and kill that other guy who is actually hurting me"
1: Taunting already exists in DnD, it just doesn't have a bunch of numbers assigned to it because it is supposed to be one of the RP elements. If it must have a number, use one of the social skills like diplomacy opposed by a sense motive check or level check. Then maybe apply a minor penalty akin to the demoralize condition caused by intimidate. Just because you ticked someone off doesn't mean they attack you right then and there after all.
2: An aggro mechanic is completely unnecessary and would make combat take even more time that it currently does. Having to maintain and update a "hate list" for each and every NPC in a battle would be mind numbing, especially with combats looking to have more than one NPC standard. One chart with a running tally of modifiers from every PC, and NPC on the players side may be manageable in the short term, but four or more will just bog things down to an unbearable crawl.
3, This is kind of a tangent, but still appropriate for this thread:The one overlooked reason they even have an Aggro mechanic in most MMOs I have played is do to lack of clipping. Just physically moving in between something and it's target is enough to make it have to deal with you most of the time, unless you are in an MMO where pathing codes would make clipping a nightmare on servers. Jumping in and taking the hit for someone else is one of the more heroic actions you get to see in tabletop games, and I feel it should be used a bit more often.
The spiked chain fighter suffers from two problems. It needs a certain weapon (a weapon, I might add, that many people think is just plain stupid. Hell not even MMORPGs use that weapon as it doesn't look goog) and it needs to be enlarged/polymorphed.
I agree with most of your post, but I do have to add something here. The spiked chain may seem stupid to a lot of people, but if you've ever seen a proficient user in chains (or even ropes with a blunt weight at the end) you will change your mind. It is rather a beautiful combat instrument, and a complex variant (kusari-gama) was actually quite popular in Japan, apparently good against swordfighters.
Also, you don't need to be enlarged to use a spiked chain well, but everybody benefits from that, even regular OGG SMASH barbs.
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.
Again, note my scope and limitations: An aggro system is fine in cases where the DM doesn't know tactics well OR if the monster acts more on instinct than intelligence. Your example of a group of bandits is thus beyond the scope of what I have said is achievable because said bandits are intelligent, and their interelations are so complicated I wouldn't suggest a DM to try it if they're not good at tactics.
So, let met throw it right back at you. You are completely wrong.
Let me introduce you to a concept called a fallacy. The one you a seem to primarily be using is the straw man. Basically, you are ignoring his actual stated position and bringing up distorted example of his position.
Not really. What I'm actually employing is a hyperbole, which shows what happens when you take the policy to the extremes. His position is that rules on aggro are unnecessary. Taken to the most extreme, all rules are actually ultimately unnecessary.
Of course, it can be construed as a strawman attack, but frankly I honestly couldn't care less. There are no rules governing debates in the Internet.
I just don't think an agro system is necessary for a tabletop game. I think it would add more complexity, when the DM can make a judgement call. If he's got a monster book and/or creativity he should be able to figure it out or think on his feet. Heck, he could even come up with something story wise why a particular creature attacks a particular person. "They hate the color red, man. Run!"
When all else fails, he can use a die and roll it. Or have the players roll a die and the closest (or furthest) from the number in his head get whacked.
As always, your mileage may vary.
True, which is why I said that the main purpose of an aggro system would be to serve as guidelines for very specific situations. I never said you should let the aggro system do all the work for you if you're a DM who's tactically capable.
