D&D 4E Hate or aggro rules in 4e

[Aristotle]

An MMO style threat listing is out of the question. They developers have stated, and restated, an intention to minimize book keeping. Tracking threat would be unecessary book keeping. Now, a taunt "maneuver" for martial defenders that forces a monster to attack them for a set number of rounds or a divine ability for divine defenders to absorb some of the damage done to other party members? Those are classic defensive abilities that would allow someone who wants to play the heroic defender character to get the game experience they are looking for. They have great tactical use and require a certain amount of team work to make best use of them. Yeah... I could see that.

I'm not saying you couldn't role play this without rules for it. I'm saying that in order to tell a cooperative story players need rules that allow them to 'take control' a little bit and mold the story without being subject to DM Fiat. Also, they want martial characters to have non-supernatural "spells" so that it's more involved to play them. These abilities fit the bill.

 

[cmrscorpio]

Besides the Knight's "aggro" abilities, the Goad feat in Miniatures Handbook and later in Complete Adventurer does this as well.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I guess the Monk will be the puller, then he can Feign Death before he gets back to the party, and when the monster start to wander off and seperate, the Ranger can pull them one at a time with his bow, which probably won't consume arrows...

 

[outsider]

I guess the Monk will be the puller, then he can Feign Death before he gets back to the party, and when the monster start to wander off and seperate, the Ranger can pull them one at a time with his bow, which probably won't consume arrows...

You are aware that bows in WoW actually do use arrows, right?

Just helping you keep your anti-WoW stance factual.

 

[Jack99]

You are aware that bows in WoW actually do use arrows, right?

Just helping you keep your anti-WoW stance factual.

He was refering to EverQuest, which incidently had monks who could feign death and rangers with endless quivers that didnt consume arrows. Also the game that made pulling an art, instead of something any class can do, like in WoW...

 

[outsider]

Ahhh, okay. When I heard Feign Death, I immediately thought of the WoW hunter ability. My bad.

It's actually nice to see someone comparing D&D to a different video game for a change, though I seriously doubt we'll see rangers with limitless arrows.

 

[Victim]

Why yes, I do in fact hate aggro rules. I don't like any rules that dictate to the DM (or to the players) how they're going to carry out their combat tactics. Compulsion effects are one thing, telling the DM that his orcs have to attack the knight because he's the tank is something else entirely.

I'd much rather see something like a few of the manoeuvres in Bo9S, which set things up so that the opponent has the option of choosing his target and actions, but if he doesn't choose the target or action that the power-using character dictates (usually the imperative is to attack that character), he suffers consequences. A trade-off, rather than a metagame lever.

Yeah, many of the Bo9S abilities that encourage enemies to attack a designated target rather than require it would be a nice fit for a defender character. Iron Guard's Glare, for instance.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Next we'll be talking about whether the PCs can "pull" one gnoll at a time from around the campfire without having to fight them all at once.

Trust me. The answer to that is always "no".

 

[Victim]

Trust me. The answer to that is always "no".

Not if you wait for one gnoll to head off by himself to go to the bathroom or something.

 

[Hussar]

While "morale" in past versions of D&D was ostensibly instituted as a control over when opponents LEAVE, rather than who they attack as "aggro" does, it is STILL something best handled by the DM because the DM ALWAYS knows better than a numerical morale/aggro value what's happening and why. 3E was right to drop it. 4E would be mistaken to reintroduce it as anything other than an isolated ability; definitely not as a general mechanic.

Actually, I disagree with this and I always thought that losing morale rules in 3e was a mistake. As it stands, there is nothing preventing a DM from having every monster fight to the death each and every time. Morale was a nice way to end fights faster without having to ponce about chopping the heads off of every kobold just because the DM feels "oh, they would never run".

I really hope they do add some sort of "taunt" ability and put a morale rating back into the rules.