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

[Deverash]

I don't think this is metagaming.

Think of it this way:

"If I dodge around a bit to draw out the giants attack, while he's recovering from that, I'll have time to heal the cleric."

That's not metagaming, is it?

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.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think this is metagaming.

Think of it this way:

"If I dodge around a bit to draw out the giants attack, while he's recovering from that, I'll have time to heal the cleric."

That's not metagaming, is it?

Yes it is. The ONLY reason to move at all was to draw an AoO. That's a mechanics issue.

Nobody ever in a book or the movies moves away to draw an attack, then goes back right from where he started to do something that he could have just done while there in the first place.

Total metagaming based totally on the game rules. This is not done in GURPS. This is not done in HEROES. This is not done in most game systems because they do not have the AoO rules. In those games, the Druid just heals the Cleric on his turn. Any action done solely to allow or disallow something within one specific rules system is metagaming.

And sure, people can TRY to rationalize it like you did, but it doesn't wash.

 

[Deverash]

<snipped for conciseness>
Inspire Courage is limited to once per day per Bard level (minus the number of times the Bard does other songs like Inspire Competence). At most once at first level. Not every single combat until later on.

That's only about 4th level, without improving it with feats. The basis for balancing encounters in 3.5 is supposed to be 4 encounters per day of a EL equal to the average party level.

It can be overcome with a Silence spell, a pretty much bread and butter spell for Clerics.

It can be overcome with a Calm Emotions spell.

It can be (partially) overcome with a Deafness spell.

It can be overcome with one or more Thunderstones.

It can (eventually) be overcome with a Grapple/Pin.

It can (eventually) be overcome with many spell effects (which prevent the Bard from performing), for example Stinking Cloud. Dazing or Stunning the Bard will finish up one of his charges per day (although the effect lasts for 5 more rounds).

All of these have the same caveat that they will last for 5 rounds after whatever if preventing the performance.

You only have to grapple a stance user to stop the stance(it ends when he's immobile). There are several low level spells that will prevent someone from moving(animate rope, entangle, etc), which drops the stance.

I don't have my PHB with me atm, but I don't believe it's even a free action to maintain bardic music effect. If that's true, neither dazing nor stunning will be effective.

Calm Emotions is an interesting counter. And gives the spell another use other than stopping someone from raging.

One other point you may be effecting, is that the enemy must be within the threatened range of target. Which means, in almost every case, a simple 5' step will move them out of the effect of the stance.

Is the party bunched up around the IGG user to maximize the benefit? Doesn't that scream AE to you?

When I played a crusader, I found IGG useful, but not over powering. IN a typical setup, i could grant an effect +4 ac to one ally. If there were 3 of us that close together, we would have been AE'd, without a doubt. And, if there are multiple creatures, the two melee characters were generally desperately trying to stem the tide and protect the casters in the back. I actually found martial spirit to be FAR more useful, especially at low levels. When the creatures deal an average of 5 or 6 hps of damage, and martial spirit can heal 4 hps a round, even at first level, that was a huge boon.

 

[Deverash]

Any action done solely to allow or disallow something within one specific rules system is metagaming.

I have a very different defination of metagaming than you do, apparently. The only way we have of interacting with the model of the world is through the rules. Using those rules is not, imo, metagaming. I have seen people use feints to get enemies to react the way they want them to in both movies and books, preventing them from reacting to something else.

As this is a question, though, of definitions(much like what's the difference between a powergamer and a munchkin), we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's only about 4th level, without improving it with feats. The basis for balancing encounters in 3.5 is supposed to be 4 encounters per day of a EL equal to the average party level.

That's only true if the Bard never uses his other Bardic Songs in an encounter day, if combats do not last longer than his duration, if there are only 4 encounters per day, if his Inspire Courage is not completely stopped by a spell, etc.

Fourth level is generally the earliest he can manage every encounter per day, but there are a lot of other factors which often make it higher than fourth level before he can do it consistently.

All of these have the same caveat that they will last for 5 rounds after whatever if preventing the performance.

All except Calm Emotions.

A simple set of Thunderstones can make Inspire Courage fairly limited if the NPCs know you have a Bard in your group and can attack in a surprise round with them (or even win Initiative). Ditto for a Silence spell.

You only have to grapple a stance user to stop the stance(it ends when he's immobile). There are several low level spells that will prevent someone from moving(animate rope, entangle, etc), which drops the stance.

Not true. Stances are stopped when helpless. Bo9S page 43. Grapple explicitly does not cause the helpless condition.

So, Grapple does not stop IGG.

I don't have my PHB with me atm, but I don't believe it's even a free action to maintain bardic music effect. If that's true, neither dazing nor stunning will be effective.

Not true. One cannot do actions while dazed or stunned, even free actions. If speaking is a free action, so is singing / reciting poetry.

One other point you may be effecting, is that the enemy must be within the threatened range of target. Which means, in almost every case, a simple 5' step will move them out of the effect of the stance.

For many directions, this also means that it moves the attacker away from the opponent he wanted to attack, especially in melee.

Is the party bunched up around the IGG user to maximize the benefit? Doesn't that scream AE to you?

The party can be 100 feet away from the Crusader and he still protects them from any attack (not just melee) for any opponent he threatens. Bunching up is not required in all circumstances.

When I played a crusader, I found IGG useful, but not over powering. IN a typical setup, i could grant an effect +4 ac to one ally. If there were 3 of us that close together, we would have been AE'd, without a doubt.

Even against opponents who do not have spell casters like many groups of monsters?

And, if there are multiple creatures, the two melee characters were generally desperately trying to stem the tide and protect the casters in the back. I actually found martial spirit to be FAR more useful, especially at low levels. When the creatures deal an average of 5 or 6 hps of damage, and martial spirit can heal 4 hps a round, even at first level, that was a huge boon.

I did not state that IGG was the only broken part of Bo9S.

 

[blargney the second]

So, Grapple does not stop IGG.

Yes it does - you don't threaten anyone while you're grappled. Add that to the heap of ways that my DM has gotten around that stance.
-blarg

 

[AllisterH]

I prefer a more plausible solution to the defender issue.

Quasi-mystical abilities for "fighter types" or "defender types" that affect others with no saving throw do not seem balanced.

Instead, I would give the defender other abiliites which seem more plausible and balanced.

1) Taking an additional 5 foot step outside his turn so that he can cover a slightly larger area for an AoO, or:

2) Giving him a lunge ability that allows him to stretch out and reach with an AoO, etc.

The problem with these manoeuvers is not one of them is a "tank" ability. Make no mistake about it, a tank could use them, but your regular fighter would use them JUST as well. Simply put, neither of these manoeuvers say to the creature "Ok, it is better I focus my attention on this guy".

The Knight ability and the "Tank" manoeuvers in Bo9S seem to be the only way to actually force a creature to stick on the tank.

As for the somewhat supernatural aspect of both the Knight and the manoeuvers...what's wrong with that?

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes it does - you don't threaten anyone while you're grappled. Add that to the heap of ways that my DM has gotten around that stance.

You are correct. It won't stop all stances, but it will stop IGG.

Course, the game often has ways around such limitations. For example, a Ring (or spell) of Freedom of Movement.

 

[KarinsDad]

As for the somewhat supernatural aspect of both the Knight and the manoeuvers...what's wrong with that?

Nothing really wrong with it as long as it allows a save.

 

[blargney the second]

Hey, I just had an interesting thought: can you use Diplomacy in 3.5 to purposely worsen someone's attitude towards you? That'd be a neat way to influence an opponent to attack you preferentially.