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

[Grog]

Attacks of opportunity were, by far, the best addition to D&D ever. It added tactics to the battle like no other addition. It's the one thing that I would never tolerate being removed entirely from D&D. It adds barely any time to the fight, and adds SO much more tactics to the game.

I disagree. The combination of AoOs and the full attack mechanic encourages meele combatants to just stand still in the middle of the battlefield and whack each other until someone falls down, maybe taking the odd 5' step to get out from being flanked. It's static, and it's boring. I talked about this here. I really do hope that AoOs and full attacks are gone, or at least greatly modified, in 4E, to make movement more of a factor in combat.

Though I do agree that, if 4E combat is more mobile, there needs to be some way for the fighter-types to protect the "soft targets."

 

[KarinsDad]

As hussar said, Aid another is NEVER used. The only time it's used is when one combatant realizes it is impossible for him to affect an opponent, and only *then* does aid another come out, and it's usually to the tune of "What, I need a 19 to hit and then even my max damage bounces? I guess I'll go aid another on Glarg the Barbarian, and hopefully the big bad won't decide to squish me".

Aid Another has one design weakness. It's a standard action. If it were a Swift Action, it would be used a lot and it would be balanced (one ally against one enemy and a roll that may or may not work at low level).

IGG is not balanced. You just like it because it is your PC. I bet your DM is not as thrilled with it as you are because he understands the imbalance of it.


Are you claiming that it is balanced when compared to other multi-target abilities like Inspire Courage or Bless or many many other abilities that can be countered, are rounds or minutes per level instead of 24/7, and do not modify the dice by 4?

No save.
No significant counter.
No failure chance.
No limited duration.
A huge penalty.

I'm surprised your DM didn't ban it outright.

It's not just good. When compared to other game abilities, it's outright broken and there is a valid reason why your DM bitches about it.

It's Persistent Mass Mage Armor that auto-stacks with other armor for up to 8 allies around you. Persistent (+4 levels) Mass (+4 levels) Mage Armor that does NOT stack with armor would be a 9th level spell. We'll call the fact that your allies have to stand next to you (con) a wash with the fact that it stacks with any armor (pro).

So you think that a 9th level spell equivalent is balanced for your PC???

That's the problem with many of the newer abilities in the newer books. Someone at WotC who really understands game balance is not nixing them and these attrocities are showing up in people's games.

Sorry, but IGG is just plain beyond broken balance-wise, regardless of the fact that you like it for your PC.


If I were playing your PC, I would talk to the DM and say "You know what? I now realize how broken this is. I'd like to replace it with a stance that's not quite so uber, is that ok with you?".

 

[The Souljourner]

In that quote, Grog, you say that removing AoO and full attacks will allow combat to get a lot more mobile and encourage tactical movement. But, there IS no tactical movement if there are no AoO or full attacks. I can run around you in circles and then run away after I attack with absolutely no repercussions. I can dodge between 20 armed soldiers to hit the mage in the back.

There's no tactics there at all. You *need* restrictions on mobility to encourage tactics. If there are no restrictions, there are no tactics, because no matter what you do, it's always the same. If there's no full attack, then hit and run away doesn't do anything... your opponent just moves up to you and hits you. In 3e that would remove his ability to full attack, in this theoretical 4e, it does nothing.

I don't agree that battles are static because of AoO.... it just forces you to actually think about the consequences of your movement. It allows people to draw fire, by eat up attacks of opportunity so others can advance/withdraw safely. It means you can actually prevent people from just running by you to get at the people behind you.

Removing attacks of opportunity removes all those tactics.

And I think you underestimate the maneuverability you get from 5' steps. Those can be very key.... and you know what? In real battles, people aren't running back and forth and back and forth, most of the time the movements are relatively small jockeying for position. I thin 3.x combat rules capture that very well.

-Nate

 

[KarinsDad]

It allows people to draw fire, by eat up attacks of opportunity so others can advance/withdraw safely.

This is a bit metagaming.

For example, in one of our games, the Druid moved away from the Giant, drew the AoO, then continued moving back to the exact same square where he started from in order to cure the downed Cleric.

The entire movement sequence was solely a mechanical one to draw the AoO and prevent an AoO during the standard action Cure spell. Granted, the player did not know that the Giant did not have Combat Reflexes, but he strongly suspected that it did not.

I agree with you that AoOs are needed (due to the mechanics of a circular initiative system). But, I think because of metagaming like this (i.e. the Fighter runs past so that the Rogue can flank without provoking), opponents should get more than a single AoO.

However, I think this will not happen in 4E since I suspect that AoOs will use up an immediate action in 4E which means that something like Combat Reflexes to get past that rule will still be needed.

Hence, this "draw the AoO" metagaming issue will probably still exist in 4E.

 

[TwinBahamut]

As a whole, I hate the idea of "taunt" moves, even in MMORPGs. Ideally, "tank" characters should be able to actively defend other characters, not just encourage a kind of passive defense. The Final Fantasy series' Cover ability, in which a knight can throw himself in harm's way to protect an ally is a better mechanic than a taunt.

Also, I agree with others in thsi thread. Hate and Aggro rules are nothing but a cheap imitation of a DM's intelligence. There is no need for them.

 

[Cadfan]

This is a bit metagaming.

Not necessarily. I think of it as running around a monster to distract it while other characters move into position. Certainly that's valid, and this is the only way to do it under the current rules.

 

[Grog]

I can dodge between 20 armed soldiers to hit the mage in the back.

Well, sure - if you don't mind being surrounded by 20 armed soldiers who are likely going to cut you to ribbons on their next turn.

AoOs are not the only factors which can encourage battlefield tactics. Not even close.

I don't agree that battles are static because of AoO.... it just forces you to actually think about the consequences of your movement.

No it doesn't. Combined with the full attack mechanic, it just discourages movement, period (unless you have a high enough Tumble skill to safely ignore it). When the party barbarian plops himself down next to a giant, he has no incentive whatsoever to move. In fact, he has a strong disincentive against moving. If he moves, he sacrifices his full attack, he eats an AoO for moving away, and since the giant has reach, he's going to eat another AoO if and when he moves back in in another round or two. His best course of action is just to stand there and swing at the giant until either he or the giant goes down.

And I think you underestimate the maneuverability you get from 5' steps. Those can be very key.... and you know what? In real battles, people aren't running back and forth and back and forth, most of the time the movements are relatively small jockeying for position. I thin 3.x combat rules capture that very well.

Sorry, but this is just flat-out wrong. Oh, it's true in battles between armies, but that's simply because in a big, mass battle, there isn't room to move around very much. But if you watch any kind of smaller hand-to-hand combat - boxing, martial arts, fencing, whatever - you'll see that the combatants do move around quite a bit, using as much of the area as they're legally allowed to. If you were to add in things like cover and high ground, movement would be even more of a factor.

Or, for a fantasy example, take Westley's fight with Innigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. They moved all over the ruins, used walls for cover, went up stairs, etc. Or take the big fight at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring movie. Aragorn didn't just stand in the same place swinging at orcs over and over again - he was moving all around the battlefield. This is what D&D combat is supposed to model, and right now, it fails miserably.

 

[ST]

I'm a big fan of the "taunt" mechanics that change the factors involved in who to target, rather than forcing a target.

As others have said, something like in Iron Heroes where the armiger class can actively defend his teammates. Yes, the enemy would rather attack the squishy guy than the guy in plate, but the guy in plate is going to present a hit penalty, maybe even a counterattack, if he tries to get past him.

I admit it's tough to balance out -- one of my favorite techniques I've seen (in house rules somewhere) made it harder to hit the defended party but easier to hit the defender.

I also think it's reasonable to have taunt/detaunt type abilities that are usable on non-intelligent creatures. For instance, a ranger knowing animals well enough to know how to make themselves more or less appealing as prey than some other party member. And as we know from any zombie movie, yelling "Hey! Over here!" and flailing your arms about can be pretty convincing to mindless undead.

 

[Victim]

IGG is not balanced. You just like it because it is your PC. I bet your DM is not as thrilled with it as you are because he understands the imbalance of it.


Are you claiming that it is balanced when compared to other multi-target abilities like Inspire Courage or Bless or many many other abilities that can be countered, are rounds or minutes per level instead of 24/7, and do not modify the dice by 4?

No save.
No significant counter.
No failure chance.
No limited duration.
A huge penalty.

I'm surprised your DM didn't ban it outright.

It's not just good. When compared to other game abilities, it's outright broken and there is a valid reason why your DM bitches about it.

It's Persistent Mass Mage Armor that auto-stacks with other armor for up to 8 allies around you. Persistent (+4 levels) Mass (+4 levels) Mage Armor that does NOT stack with armor would be a 9th level spell. We'll call the fact that your allies have to stand next to you (con) a wash with the fact that it stacks with any armor (pro).

IGG requires that the character using it threaten the foe and be adjacent to the ally. Tactically speaking, it's possible to negate it with a five foot step. A party remaining adjacent to enjoy its benefits is not flanking, and is extremely bunched up and thus a prime target for AoE and lacking the ability to threaten dispersed opponents.

If you're comparing it to buff effects, then IGG still comes up short in my opinion. Sure, it's unlimited use, but a good buff will usually affect the whole group, and will continue to provide its bonus without the party jumping through a hoop every round.

The fact that you can apparently call Persistent, Mass Mage Armor is 9th level spell effect with a straight face means that our ideas on balance are so far apart that we might as well be on different planets anyway. At least we can agree that the opportunity cost of using Aid Another in combat is generally way too high for its benefit.

 

[Nebulous]

This kind of mechanic doesn't make sense for a role playing game. The DM is in charge of the monsters and of determining who the monster wants to hit the most.

Mechanics like this make the game seem too artificial and disingenuous, if you ask me. 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.

Or, the DM just says roll 1d6. "You rolled even Tor; the dragon attacks you instead." Not exactly a realistic way to settle the issue, but that has passed for law around our tables many, many, many times.

As for pulling the gnoll away from the campfire one at a time, that would be pure DM fiat, and some crafty checks from the PC's to lure the enemy away. No guarantee of success, and certainly no "aggro" needed (i'm actually not familiar with that term, i don't MMO)