Just as an exercise, I'm going to try thinking of a simple aggro system for D&D.
This is a rule-of-thumb guide for the DM to use when deciding which target, or targets, a monster should attack. It assumes the monster is reasonably intelligent, and depends on the monster's combat role.
If it's a Defender, then attack whoever's putting a fellow Controller or Striker in the most peril. Otherwise, attack the nearest Defender or Leader.
If it's a Leader, go to the position that gives their fellows the best advantage, and attack from there. Choose enemy Leaders as their first targets, or help their Defenders kill their targets.
If it's a Striker, choose the target that's most likely to go down with one hit. Otherwise, target a Controller or another Striker.
If it's a Controller, choose the target (or targets) that's causing the group the most trouble, and deal with them. Otherwise, target enemy Controllers or Strikers.
Of course, many situations will demand a variance from these guidelines, but they can be used as a default starting point.
Just as an exercise, I'm going to try thinking of a simple aggro system for D&D.
This is a rule-of-thumb guide for the DM to use when deciding which target, or targets, a monster should attack. It assumes the monster is reasonably intelligent, and depends on the monster's combat role.
If it's a Defender, then attack whoever's putting a fellow Controller or Striker in the most peril. Otherwise, attack the nearest Defender or Leader.
If it's a Leader, go to the position that gives their fellows the best advantage, and attack from there. Choose enemy Leaders as their first targets, or help their Defenders kill their targets.
If it's a Striker, choose the target that's most likely to go down with one hit. Otherwise, target a Controller or another Striker.
If it's a Controller, choose the target (or targets) that's causing the group the most trouble, and deal with them. Otherwise, target enemy Controllers or Strikers.
Of course, many situations will demand a variance from these guidelines, but they can be used as a default starting point.
The problem now becomes, everybody who plays D&D knows this. Now you can formulate strategies to take advantage of stupid thinking by opponents that follow a rigid design.
Think of a football game. If the offense always knows that the safeties are going to cheat up and the CBs are blitzing, the defense is done. If the defense always knows that the offense is faking the pass with a draw play, the offense is done. Even if the offense knows the defense is going to play Cover 2 every down, they've got an edge. Because every single tactic is beatable if the opponent has prior knowledge and can prepare for it, this giant game of rock-paper-scissors devolves into routine grinding like many MMOs. That is not good or believable. It works in MMOs because the battle tactics themselves are supposed to be abstract models of combat. You either suspend disbelief, or you assume it's an abstraction.
In other words, when you take down Onyxia by strategizing to have one orc stand in front of her soaking up her attacks, that's not "really" what is happening. In the lore, or the canon, or whatever, she would not fall for a stupid trick like that. The specifics of the battle, the tactics, the positioning, the abilities, all of that is abstracted into the WOW game mechanics. This is to make 40-man battles work on coordination and timing, they create the aggro game mechanic.
In D&D, however, when a dragon tries to bite an orc, that is actually what is happening, even outside of game mechanics. The dragon literally tries to bite the orc. When the fighter trips the goblin, he literally did trip the goblin. It happened in the "canon" of the story.
Think of it this way: In the Star Wars Episode III XBOX game, you fight Dooku as Anakin. You have various powers, and your link to the Force is represented as a game mechanic that regenerates. You can heal yourself, you can execute a few lightsaber combos, etc. When Anakin heals himself with the Force, say, that is only supposed to be an abstraction of what "really" happened in the canon. This is to make gameplay interesting/balanced/feasible/whatever. But in D&D, we like less abstraction. Hit points, levels, numbers, etc., are enough without expanding into the entire battle. It gives a better sense of realism and a better connection between your decisions and your character's actions.
Does anyone actually have a definitive meaning for terms like "tank"? 3 pages and I still can't distill the definition...
If it is simply a role, a wizard could arguably be a tank as well (using spells like alter self/mirror image to improve his defenses, or even using summon monster to bring in huge centipedes to clutter up the battlefield), or just stymie the foes with spells like evard's tentacles.
It shouldn't really matter how it is achieved, so long as the desired result is attained.
Does anyone actually have a definitive meaning for terms like "tank"? 3 pages and I still can't distill the definition...
If it is simply a role, a wizard could arguably be a tank as well (using spells like alter self/mirror image to improve his defenses, or even using summon monster to bring in huge centipedes to clutter up the battlefield), or just stymie the foes with spells like evard's tentacles.
It shouldn't really matter how it is achieved, so long as the desired result is attained.
I agree. This is what I originally posted, and it is very much in the same train of thought:
me]"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?
I think the traditional MMO "tank" is a certain type of battlefield controller, but very narrowly-defined, because he has a few very specific abilities. Because 3.5E gave characters a vast pool of available choices, some as powerful as altering the terrain, transposing characters, even altering space-time--we really don't need a "tank" per se anymore.
Because people still enjoy playing powerful melee characters that protect others and serve as point, we need to give these types other battlefield control abilities. The aforementioned mobility-denying ones are a good wrote:
"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?[/quote] I think the traditional MMO "tank" is a certain type of battlefield controller, but very narrowly-defined, because he has a few very specific abilities. Because 3.5E gave characters a vast pool of available choices, some as powerful as altering the terrain, transposing characters, even altering space-time--we really don't need a "tank" per se anymore.
Because people still enjoy playing powerful melee characters that protect others and serve as point, we need to give these types other battlefield control abilities. The aforementioned mobility-denying ones are a good start.
Does anyone actually have a definitive meaning for terms like "tank"? 3 pages and I still can't distill the definition...
If it is simply a role, a wizard could arguably be a tank as well (using spells like alter self/mirror image to improve his defenses, or even using summon monster to bring in huge centipedes to clutter up the battlefield), or just stymie the foes with spells like evard's tentacles.
It shouldn't really matter how it is achieved, so long as the desired result is attained.
It is a role - it's the role that soaks up damage on behalf of party members who have less hit points. And yes, 3e wizards could certainly tank better than fighters, as could 3e clerics. Under the 4e concept of "more defined roles," however, the fighter will have abilities that allow it to "tank" most effectively because it's under the "Defender" heading, along with Paladins. So in other words, either those wizard spells won't be as effective as they were for tanking in past editions, or the fighter will be that much better at tanking due to his class abilities (or a combination of both.) The WotC staff has said that indeed, classes will be able to perform functions outside their role, but the sort of unofficial definition of role is the function your character could do blindfolded (that's not a real quote, that's just my impression.)
The problem from the beginning is that people see the fighter and say 'we should make a more defined role for him' or 'we should give him spell like mechanics to boost his prowess' and they think THAT is the fix. The knight class was a decent example of a class that took on this idea of a 'tank' but a feat that could, say, let you give up your movement actoin in one round to move in front of another party member when an opponent is coming at them. If you want to make mechanics to let someone take on a role, I am all for that, but WotC is FORCING those roles on characters. Its going to come down to 'no im the damage dealer not the tank' instead of 'because my character has this personality he will have these feats and this combat style, now how can THIS fit in with my party.'
Its centered around the party as a unit, not unique individuals finding their own role in the party.what 4e will do is give you a set of mechanics, maybe two, to use as a fighter to be a tank, but when push comes to shove and you want a guy who's personality is not defined by something like how much damage he can deal or how good he is at being the linebacker, but may have some aspects of each, as well as some not even related to combat, THEN you have problems.
The problem now becomes, everybody who plays D&D knows this. Now you can formulate strategies to take advantage of stupid thinking by opponents that follow a rigid design.
Think of a football game. If the offense always knows that the safeties are going to cheat up and the CBs are blitzing, the defense is done. If the defense always knows that the offense is faking the pass with a draw play, the offense is done. Even if the offense knows the defense is going to play Cover 2 every down, they've got an edge. Because every single tactic is beatable if the opponent has prior knowledge and can prepare for it, this giant game of rock-paper-scissors devolves into routine grinding like many MMOs. That is not good or believable. It works in MMOs because the battle tactics themselves are supposed to be abstract models of combat. You either suspend disbelief, or you assume it's an abstraction.
In other words, when you take down Onyxia by strategizing to have one orc stand in front of her soaking up her attacks, that's not "really" what is happening. In the lore, or the canon, or whatever, she would not fall for a stupid trick like that. The specifics of the battle, the tactics, the positioning, the abilities, all of that is abstracted into the WOW game mechanics. This is to make 40-man battles work on coordination and timing, they create the aggro game mechanic.
In D&D, however, when a dragon tries to bite an orc, that is actually what is happening, even outside of game mechanics. The dragon literally tries to bite the orc. When the fighter trips the goblin, he literally did trip the goblin. It happened in the "canon" of the story.
Think of it this way: In the Star Wars Episode III XBOX game, you fight Dooku as Anakin. You have various powers, and your link to the Force is represented as a game mechanic that regenerates. You can heal yourself, you can execute a few lightsaber combos, etc. When Anakin heals himself with the Force, say, that is only supposed to be an abstraction of what "really" happened in the canon. This is to make gameplay interesting/balanced/feasible/whatever. But in D&D, we like less abstraction. Hit points, levels, numbers, etc., are enough without expanding into the entire battle. It gives a better sense of realism and a better connection between your decisions and your character's actions.
I think the very fact that Onyxia is going up against 40 people is an essential factor in explaining why things are as they are. She needs to be tough enough to provide a decent battle, but that means if she intelligently picked out who to attack, rather than relying on an aggro meter, the characters would die quickly. Also, the casters can't do much other than chip away at her with damage.
Conversely, if a group of five 20th level characters take on an "Onyxia", the discrepancy between characters and dragon is nowhere near as huge. The DM has more latitude to use smart tactics because the PCs are tough enough to handle Onyxia's attentions if she chooses to attack them, and have the tools to counter what she does.
"Opponent X has done the most damage to me, therefore I will blindly try to attack it despite the tactical stupidity of doing so."
Why is stupid?
If someone easily killable (in a tunic or leather) is hurting me badly I would attack him better that the guy in impenetrable armor and no so dangerous.
I think that taunting should'nt be a special class feature but a use of both handle animal (for non-humanoids) and bluff since the point of taunting is provoking the enemy into attacking you, the least threat.
Aggro mechanics are nice if well done in a mmorpg... but indeed have no place in a human controlled monster.
