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

[KarinsDad]

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.

There is the "swing a sword at him" level of Diplomacy which might do this.

 

[blargney the second]

*laugh*
... or a heavy diplomace.

 

[BRP2]

Rather than "hate or aggro", I would prefer it if "tanks" protected their companions with positioning and abilities.

Like, instead of the monster wanting to hit the Paladin instead of the Wizard, the monster can't hit the Wizard because the Paladin blocks his path with some fancy shield work.

I'd actually like it if MMORPGs started to use this, I think DnD gots it right and those games should adapt to fit a more interesting gameplay.

In anycase, I did like Knight's Challenge and all that.

 

[blargney the second]

BRP2, there are a few things in Bo9S that can do what you're suggesting:
1) Evasive Target is a feat lets you take a 5' step instead of an AoO.
2) Thicket of Blades is a stance that lets you take an AoO anytime someone moves in your threatened area.
3) Shield Block is an immediate action counter that lets you give a 4+shield bonus to AC to an adjacent ally.

You can use 1 & 2 together to do some fancy footwork to block enemies outside your turn. 3 has fairly obvious effects.
-blarg

 

[DonTadow]

Sounds like they are just spelling out what many DMs already did. This falls in line with the theme which is make is make it easy on the DM and make people wnat to DM more

 

[ruleslawyer]

Rather than "hate or aggro", I would prefer it if "tanks" protected their companions with positioning and abilities.

Like, instead of the monster wanting to hit the Paladin instead of the Wizard, the monster can't hit the Wizard because the Paladin blocks his path with some fancy shield work.

Yet another thing for which Mearls could theoretically consult his Iron Heroes design notes. The armiger's combat magnet ability works this way.

 

[Destil]

Saga Ed. SW

Let's look at how our "Significant Preview" handles it.

Soldier talents, Commando tree:

Harm's Way - Like the Devoted Defender Ability. Swift action and you take hits for an adjacent ally for one round. Some questions on which def (AC) to use, I'm not sure if a clarification has been put forward by the designers yet.

Draw Fire - Persuasion (Diplomacy) check vs. Will Def (Will save vs. Check result) of all opponents who can see you, swift action. If you succeed they can not attack any ally of yours within 6 squares (30 feet) unless you have cover from them for one round.

Cover Fire - When you attack with a rifle or pistol all allies within 6 squares (30 feet) gain +1 Reflex defense (AC) for one round.


So I think I can see something like that making it's way into 4E.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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".

Just as the DM can stupidly choose to have the monsters ALWAYS fight to the death, the DM can choose to ALWAYS ignore morale rolls, or choose when to make them in the first place. It's not a rules problem - it's a DM problem.

Rules like morale simply cannot hope to handle all the subtleties and innumerable variables that determine who fights and for how long as readily and sensibly as a live DM. The DM controls ALL decisions for every NPC, every monster, just as the players control their characters. The DM should only relenquish that control when it is wrested away from him by in-game magical effects, just as any player only gets told by the DM what his character will do when HIS control is similarly affected. It makes no sense for the DM to turn over actual CONTROL of the game to such a weak, non-comprehensive mechanic. Just because a given DM can't/won't do properly what he is there to do in the first place isn't a good argument for general mechanics like morale rolls or aggro to try and force him to do it.

 

[Hussar]

Just as the DM can stupidly choose to have the monsters ALWAYS fight to the death, the DM can choose to ALWAYS ignore morale rolls, or choose when to make them in the first place. It's not a rules problem - it's a DM problem.

Rules like morale simply cannot hope to handle all the subtleties and innumerable variables that determine who fights and for how long as readily and sensibly as a live DM. The DM controls ALL decisions for every NPC, every monster, just as the players control their characters. The DM should only relenquish that control when it is wrested away from him by in-game magical effects, just as any player only gets told by the DM what his character will do when HIS control is similarly affected. It makes no sense for the DM to turn over actual CONTROL of the game to such a weak, non-comprehensive mechanic. Just because a given DM can't/won't do properly what he is there to do in the first place isn't a good argument for general mechanics like morale rolls or aggro to try and force him to do it.

This is incorrect. A simple Intimidate check can take control of an NPC away from the DM. Actually, any of the social skills can take control (or at least seriously curtail) of the NPC from the DM. It does not take magical effects at all. And, note, that none of these things work on PC's.

Yes, the DM can ignore the rules. But, that's considerably different than not having any rules in the first place. If the DM ignores the rules, the player can certainly challenge that. As it stands, there is no mechanical argument that a player can make if the DM decides that all creatures fight to the death.

It's simple enough to make exceptions to rules within adventures - "These cultists are fanatical and believe that dying in defense of the cult guarantees them a place at the right hand of Pazuzu, they fight to the death."

I'd much rather see a fairly simple mechanic, similar to some sort of saving throw, that NPC's have to make under certain circumstances. If you choose not to use those rules, that's fine. But, I'd rather have them in.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

This is incorrect. A simple Intimidate check can take control of an NPC away from the DM. Actually, any of the social skills can take control (or at least seriously curtail) of the NPC from the DM. It does not take magical effects at all. And, note, that none of these things work on PC's.

Which is, actually, something of a problem I have with the social skills. They're essentially useless against the characters.

I don't want to see high-diplomacy NPCs turning the PCs into their lap dogs, or monsters intimidating them into blubbering, nervous wrecks. What I'd like to see would be along the lines of taking a -1 to hit someone who's using Diplomacy to convince you he's on your side, for example.