|
4 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2009 - 11:30AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2003
|
I've never heard this and it sounds like you're referring to a very specific couple of posts. It may even be a misunderstanding.
No, I'm not referring to a specific set of posts. No, this is not based on a misunderstanding. This is a systemic observation of 4E as it is played, discussed and understood by actual players, as informed by my 32 years of experience playing D&D. You obviously suppose this is a narrow issue. It isn't.
A defender is performing his role when he takes a hit in the place of his team mates. This does not mean it is the only possible way to fulfill his role. This does not mean he must always do this, and insisting otherwise just seems artificial.
I don't see your point. I don't talk about Defender methodology at all. My point has more to do with how DMs control monsters... and how that, in turn, compels different styles of play.
No one's the authority of what qualifies as necessary or definitive. This is another case of trying to insert laws into what is essentially a guideline.
I made no laws. I proposed no rules. I referred to no guideline. The only thing I proposed is an application of common sense.
I'm gonna have to agree with AlphatheGreat - this is a lot more about game design and personal preferences, rather than specific optimization.
I don't think you understood what AlphatheGreat actually said.
-Unmaker
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2009 - 11:40AM
#12
|
|
|
I agree somewhat with Unmaker. How the DM controls and use monsters though is always going to be based around the DM's ability to play (good example is when people believe Dragons in 4E are weak). As a monster, it really depends on how smart they are really and how they think. In general I believe monsters think:
If a monster is not mark, then of course I'm going to want to attack the person who is either closest and looks the squishiest because i'm a monster rawr I want food. If i'm smarter than i'm going to use tactics with others to get the job done.
If a monster is marked, then the monsters ability to roam freely has been hampered. Some monsters may be dumb, but why would anyone want a free sword to the face if they could prevent it? So my best course of action is to kill that person who is marking me quicker than I can freely go about my business once again and kill things even quicker.
If a monster is marked and at a stalemate with someone or ignored for the most part, then adventually he's going to go away even if he has to suffer that one time hit if he knows he will get to someone that is hampering his ability to kill that defender.
Monsters should operate the same way to a certain degree that PCs work. A player usually wants the least amount of free attacks and damage on him because "hey, that hurts"! The same theory should work for monsters.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2009 - 12:28PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2008
|
I run 2 different games once a week. And I play in LFR. I see exactly what your talking about.
In LFR its VERY VERY rare that an attack goes for anyone but the tank (even for a monster that isn't marked!). And when it does its usually along the lines of "Oh i guess this guy will run over to the dude back there and take a swing." in that bs effort of making the other player feel involved.
In my home games I drove the point home about how the defender can't take it all. One of the first fights they did (started at 4?) was in a "maze" styled arena. When they ran into the first group of monsters (2 displacer beast and a controller eladrin out of the MM can't remember his name) the warrior did his thing and charged up right away passing attack on the displacers to mark them. The team decided to focus fire on one dispalcer beast (only got it to about bloodied (i was rolling really well for him). Then the eladrin went and teleported the fighter to another part of the maze where it would take him roughly 2 turns of running to get back into the action. Immediatly one player through a hissy fit about how they were going to die without a "tank" and i swear was ready to walk out but another player convinced him to chill.
Next round the wizard (staff) double moved to the front lines popped an AP layed out a color spray. One of the displacer beast was missed and it ran through the party (all casters) and went to intercept the fighter. The fight took another few rounds and ran the cleric out of heals and the bow ranger actually dropped. Eventually they managed to drop everything.
At the end of the session the player who had initially thrown a hissy fit (hardcore min maxer) told me that he really enjoyed it and wanted to re roll so that his charater could do more then roll damage. He ended up making an artful dodger rogue MC Warlock. Allowing him to eyebit people blocking his path to the guys in the back he needs to get at (drow so he can give himself CA). And has picked up the staple as the parties "second defender".
Honestly i beleive that characterOP boards/Wotc/MMO/DMs are equal to blame for these harsh stereotypes.
WotC made a choice to designate roles in thier books people REALLY harp on this a "A defender shoudln't do more damage then a striker!" "A striker shouldn't have more AC then a defender!" "What defines a controller?" "Are all leaders just heal bots?"
MMOs really started the trend and lets face it MMOs as a whole are EVERYWHERE everyone is familiar with the formula. I've also seen MMO mentality leak over into some game/monster designs without regaurds for how the mechanics are different.
Stuff like the boss to every dungeon being a super strong solo and having a aura 5 does 20 necrotic damage at the start of anyones turn who is in the aura.... and they put in him in a 10x10 room. Of course he has a retarded +hit and damage mod. When you ask the guy who made the monster how the party is suppose to live through it and he responds "well the healer just has to heal through it its a dps race." I just want to smack em. (think this was designed to fight a party of level 10s)
And so now people go online and they go OH i want to be awesome what do i do? They run to charater OP cause lets face everyone wants to be awesome. And they are immediatly faced with builds of charaters novaing for absurd damage and it drives the point home even harder.
If i want to be the best dpr i need to play a stormwarden
If i want to be the best tank i need to be a battlerager
If i want to be a tank that does damage i need to be a tempest fighter
If i have channel divinity i must take RRoT
For each of these builds i need to play this race to qualify for these feats because they are the best.
On and on till you've got a crowd of dnd players with so many cookie cutter charater you'd think your playing EQ (pre luclin). And with as much imagination for charater design and concepts for dungeon... just plain old creativity as a pat in scarlet monestary.
Its really noticable when you see the difference between people who are about ... 30+ years old and kids of 20 and younger. And how differently there approach to the game is.
FYI i'm not bashing anyone playing how they want to play. Have fun number crunch away or do nothing but talk in charater for 6 hours straight. But i dig where the OP is coming from.
I blame it on the extreme mentalty more than anything. The point i was getting at with charaters making the best DPR charaters ect is that it leads players away from building charaters capable of filling holes (taking a hit when your party needs you too or being able to cast that spare heal). And thus leads on the MMO mentality ... well if no one else is capable fo taking a hit ... i have to take them all.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2009 - 12:29PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2008
|
I guess it never occurred to me that I'd be preaching to the choir. I suppose I'm just used to posters frantically disagreeing with whatever I say, no matter how reasonable.
The thing is, I'm not sure which forum this topic is best suited for. It concerns Defenders, but the root of the problem is systemic. I want to address Defenders and DMs alike.
-Unmaker
I think perhaps the DM forum is the best place, it seems like the problem you're describing has many of its roots in "bad" combat DMing.
A few other reflections/questions:
- I've never before heard of or run into this problem. Could it be age related (as in older players/group members usually play less MMOs)?
- Neither MMOs in general or WoW created the "tank" concept, I'd say wargames (and D&D) did long before MMOs existed. Strange that MMOs seem to have so vigourosly adapted this concept that they now make D&D groups have false notions of how party roles "should" be defined/attacked.
- Isn't this more a question of some DMs lacking tactical insight to provide the challenge an encounter with intelligent monsters should be, ie it's not so much a question of MMO "bias" and strange preconceptions?
- I really do hate preconceptions like this. Some people needs to be reminded that WoW is a VERY limited and simplified version of a PnP RPG and the only thing it shares with D&D is that it also has a (different) fantasy setting. Its a bit like people thinking things like: "In fantasy, there's orcs and elfs. And magicians that have staffs and pointy hats. That's fantasy."
Test your PC builds' combat prowess and pit them against other builds at the Core Coliseum - the online D&D arena.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2009 - 1:43PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
The job of a defender isn't to take damage at all -- the job of a defender is to prevent other people from taking damage. A defender is effective in his role if he (a) actually prevents monsters from attacking his teammates, and (b) can survive doing so.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2009 - 1:53PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2009
|
I think the problem here is the optimization of the classes, so if i am an striker i have to do tons of damage, if i am a defender i have to resist 100 mobs ... If you not optimize your character is not good for the party. I think is a problem mainly of WOTC, they create the classes most of then so they can only go one way to feel useful, i think with new books and new feats powers .. this can be changed, but for now only few classes have customization to create your character. I like my class the swordmage, but i can be a defender an only a defender, my powers dont do damage, my aoe arent very good compared to stances of the fighter... I hope this will change with new books. Regards Dara 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Mar 27, 2009 - 2:40PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2009
|
Another important thing to keep in mind is that since a person (the dungeon master) is playing the enemies, and they're often intelligent, at least to a degree, there's no program to which you must respond and exploit. So you can just as often have the enemies try to tank YOU and take out the threats in your group systematically.
This means that everybody has to be able to handle hits, do some damage, have some control/survival abilities. Or the party has to be balanced in such a way that one-trick ponies effectively become cogs in a powerful machine. At that point, it's the DM's job to run interference and throw encounters at you that will challenge your party make-up.
That's why I like polearm fighters, sword'n'board fighters, and swordmages, all of whom have distinct control abilities that impact tactics. They end up being the best at stepping in and screwing with the enemy's plan. It's not just a threat of some damage, it's the ability to physically move, incapacitate, or otherwise lock down a target at the right time.
I think the round-to-round power of a character is sometimes overvalued in respect to the the impact of timely abilities. Who cares if people other than the defender get wailed on? They have hit points and defenses, too. What matters is that the defender can step in and prevent serious threats and keep the enemies from interfering with the squishies' jobs. And I think the character optimization boards around here bounce around amongst one-trick ponies and characters that simply get the job done without question. And that's the way it should be. Both have their place, depending on your party and game.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 5:55PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2007
|
I played a maintank prot pally in endgame WoW, albeit months behind most guilds' progression, as I was a casual player. I think it's easy for people to assume that mobs just run at the tank in a game like wow. However, the threat mechanics make enemies attack the person with the most aggro - which will usually be either the person doing the most damage to that target or the healer, unless the tank actively generates threat or taunts the target. Stickiness is definitely an issue in WoW.
If a similar algorithm to the wow aggro mechanics was made for 4e (possibly using some kind of cost/benefit analysis involving expected damage dealt, and damage prevented/provoked), the monsters probably would attack the strikers, controllers or leaders, rather than the defender - unless the defender disincentivised this with marks and other class features/powers. So, if it worked like wow, I don't think it would be too different. Tanks would have to work for aggro, but if they did their job right, they should be able to keep enemies attacking them.
I think that the reason that monsters so often go straight for the tank is that the DM in question doesn't consider the costs and benefits from the enemy's point of view at all, not that they try to apply wow-like assumptions to D&D.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 22, 2009 - 6:21PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2007
|
I think that the reason that monsters so often go straight for the tank is that the DM in question doesn't consider the costs and benefits from the enemy's point of view at all, not that they try to apply wow-like assumptions to D&D.
Yeah, it's simply bad DMing. I've seen players surprised, yes surprised, when mobs took damage from defenders to go after the strikers killing them. Why this would surprise anyone is beyond me. It obviously was in the devs plan as combat challenge and a chaladin's DC actually can hurt at some levels.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 4:59AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2008
|
I made no laws. I proposed no rules. I referred to no guideline. The only thing I proposed is an application of common sense.
Sure you did. Right in the original post: "Intelligent monsters should ALWAYS TRY TO EVADE THE DEFENDER!"
Which is nonsense, by the way...
I'd agree that I see some DMs that are a bit too intent on beating up the Defender. That's probably due to the fact that the Defender actually has the tools to do their job now. A DM that fully ignores the Defender on a regular basis is usually doubling the Defender's damage output or worse, which tends to turn them into a freakish super-Striker. (At least in the common case of the Fighter)
Add to this the fact that many monster teams have elements of their 'party' that are worth protecting as well, and what you proposed (in all caps no less) is equivalent to suicide.
In more general terms I agree with you. I see some DMs that are focused too much on beating up Defenders. When you make foolishly overgeneralized statements like the one above, though, you've lost me.
Know what does work the best on most Defenders I've seen? Give them something that's both durable and scary-looking to trade blows with that's out of the way. THEN go for the rest of the party. Even that isn't a hard and fast rule anymore, though.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
|
|
|
