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

[Jarrod]

Actually, I think I could like this.

The tank role is tough in D&D. Monsters (and players) are simply too mobile. I'm running a campaign right now where a player tried to build a tank character - high AC, high hit points, etc. Monsters quickly learned they couldn't hit the tank and went and beat up on the sorcerer instead. It was extraordinarily difficult for Mr. Tank to stop that - he got an AoO as they strolled past and whacked Ms. Sorcerer.

So in Mr Tank's game, I tried the same thing - this time as a dashing swordsman who would taunt the enemy into wasting their time with Sir Dashing instead of whacking Mr. Softie. Also didn't work - they swung, missed, and went on to the soft target.

A taunt mechanism would be *lovely*.

 

[wedgeski]

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 agree. When 3ed first came out I spent ages looking through the books for the morale rules, convinced I'd missed them.

 

[Jack99]

Actually, I think I could like this.

The tank role is tough in D&D. Monsters (and players) are simply too mobile. I'm running a campaign right now where a player tried to build a tank character - high AC, high hit points, etc. Monsters quickly learned they couldn't hit the tank and went and beat up on the sorcerer instead. It was extraordinarily difficult for Mr. Tank to stop that - he got an AoO as they strolled past and whacked Ms. Sorcerer.

So in Mr Tank's game, I tried the same thing - this time as a dashing swordsman who would taunt the enemy into wasting their time with Sir Dashing instead of whacking Mr. Softie. Also didn't work - they swung, missed, and went on to the soft target.

A taunt mechanism would be *lovely*.

Jarrod pretty much nailed the issue at hand. As long as the fighter is not the one who does the most damage in a party, and have basically no other way to incapacitate monsters, you need a "taunt" ability similar to goad or the knight ability in order to keep the fighter viable. Else you will either have monsters that simply ignore the fighter due to either too high AC/hp or too little damage. Why try to do 200+ damage to someone with AC 45, when its just as easy to go for the rogue with 100 hps and AC 25?

However, if you make the fighter the top dog in melee damage, while he has the highest hps and the highest AC, you create a significant imbalance. Therefore, the most logic fix is a taunt ability. Just need to be careful when you make it.

 

[Nifft]

In the current rules, though, the obvious answer is don't tank with Fighters.

If your tanks are a Druid and a Cleric instead, any foe would be simply insane to ignore them.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

A friend was recently talking about a game where a highly injured giant spider c-d-ged his character on it's last action of combat, rather than, say, taking full defense and double moving it's 8 legged rear out of there. It was not, as far as could be determined, magicly compelled, a shape shifted blood enemy of the party or anything else. It was a fricking spider who wanted to kill an incapacitated PC instead of either improving it's odds to survive or running.

By all means, bring back morale, at the very least for anything with less than 3 int. DMs can be encouraged to award circumstance bonuses to the creatures or take ten on checks or whatever, but let's at least have some guidelines.

 

[The Souljourner]

This is D&D not an MMORPG. You don't get free "please attack me and only me" abilities.... They're a crutch that originated on MUDs that didn't have graphics, so there was no way for the cloth wearers to "Stay away" from the big baddies. It continued in MMORPGs probably because they don't have the processing power to run complicated AIs for the 10,000 or so fights going on at any one time on a server.

In D&D, monsters behave rationally (according to their temperament and intelligence of course). The DM is their AI and determines in some manner he thinks is logical who the monster will attack.

I would really hate it if the fighter class had a ton of abilities that somehow mysteriously keep baddies only attacking himself. Even taunt type things should only work against intelligent monsters, and then only in very limited capacities... otherwise it's just not at all realistic.

I really love Iron Guard's Glare... I have a low level Crusader who took it, and it's always the bane of the DM. *that* is how you should handle defensive abilities - don't have the ability force the enemy to attack you, that's unrealistic.... have the ability make you the logical choice for attack. In the case of Iron Guard's Glare, giving the enemy -4 to hit your allies is a pretty good incentive.

The good thing about that, is that it's doesn't take away the DM's control of his monsters.... no DM likes that. Instead, it's just a tactic to which he has to decide how the monsters react.

As for DMs that never have enemies run away.... that's the fault of the DM, not the rules. Whether or not someone runs away from a fight should be a roleplaying decision, not a rules decision. The DM is roleplaying his monsters, if you think he's not doing a good job, I'd suggest talking to him about it (not during a session) and see if you can get him to try to change how he roleplays his monsters. Rules that dictate roleplaying are almost always a bad idea.

-Nate

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

A friend was recently talking about a game where a highly injured giant spider c-d-ged his character on it's last action of combat, rather than, say, taking full defense and double moving it's 8 legged rear out of there. It was not, as far as could be determined, magicly compelled, a shape shifted blood enemy of the party or anything else. It was a fricking spider who wanted to kill an incapacitated PC instead of either improving it's odds to survive or running.

By all means, bring back morale, at the very least for anything with less than 3 int. DMs can be encouraged to award circumstance bonuses to the creatures or take ten on checks or whatever, but let's at least have some guidelines.

Guidelines I can accept. Rules for things like this I have more of an issue with. I don't like more rules becoming the fix for poor DMing.

 

[Cadfan]

The easiest way to make monsters choose to go after the "tank" character is to make the tank genuinely threatening, and the non tank characters fast enough to run away.

 

[fuindordm]

Lest we forget, the game is about the players.

Who cares if your players can influence the actions of their enemies? Is it upsetting when they kill an ogre? When they find and disarm that fiendish trap you put on the door? When they bluff their way past a guard? It shouldn't be.

The useless tank is a very real problem in 3rd edition, and the Knight's challenge was a brilliant way of fixing it. It was not overtly magical, it had great flavor for the class, and it wasn't overpowered... it just said "Hey Big Guy! Hit me first!"

As DMs, our job is to provide the players with story elements and challenges to overcome. If we get too attached to elements of the story, then players start to suffer for the sake of the DM's fun.

By all means make the really important NPCs immune to the Knight's words, or just give them really high Will saves--in the same way you might give them Cold Resistance or a high Sense Motive skill. But it should be for the sake of providing an interesting challenge, NOT to maintain control.

Ben

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Guidelines I can accept. Rules for things like this I have more of an issue with. I don't like more rules becoming the fix for poor DMing.

I dunno, it seems to me that every rule is a fix for poor DMing if you shift the definition of poor far enough. More to the point, realistic surrenders and cutting and running are issues almost all DMs have, in my expereince, not to mention module writers and the occasional movie director. A baseline mechanic with some easy to apply circumstance bonuses for training and motivation would help almost all DMs I have dealt with, including myself, not just try to change poor DMs. And those (few ime) DMs who are so good they don't need them can just tell their players "I don't use morale rules, but I realisticly roleplay the opponents."