SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS
Explorer
I really like the 4e knight defender aura, to me something like that is a good for any one how likes to defend his friends....
R
RHGreen
Guest
Aggro is bit too artificial, or maybe just clunky, for me. I'm not really sure what exactly I don't like. It's okay for MMOs but I can live without it in D&D.
I think a few things that can help is:
1. DISTRACTION ADVANTAGE: If a fighter is next to an enemy, if that enemy attacks something else, it gets a free attack.
2. INTERPOSE: If an enemy tries to pass the fighter, the fighter gets a free attack (like an OA, but I want that to not be a general ability) and knocks them down/back/something. *Not grid specific.
3. COVER: If an enemy targets an ally the fighter can take the attack on himself. The fighter must be next to the ally target, or the enemy attacking the ally to do so. (Think Caramon with his shield protecting Raistlin while he casts a spell so it doesn't get interrupted. It might be good if this was combined with my save-or-die solution**.
I like what Marking tries to do, but I don't like Marking. It should be simplified. I suppose they did that with auras, but auras are still too grid specific.
I'm sure there are other things that can be done.
** Save-Or-Die solution (it's more a start to a solution rather than a finished fix.
** Lower the chance of likely success to 1in3 or 1in4, and they can be cast continuously through multiple rounds until they succeed, so it probably takes 3 or 4 rounds to get a success like a normal sequence of whittling down hit points before defeating the enemy - but with special outcome.
** Getting hit while casting a spell disrupts it and the wizard stops casting it as it is lost.
** Perhaps the wizard casts a charm spell. The target has 30 hit points. He rolls the spell attack for 10 points - no effect. Next round the fighter hits the target for 14 points knocking the target down to 16 hit points. The wizard keeps casting the charm uninterrupted. He rolls the spell attack for 8 points. The spell attack of 18 is higher than the target's hit points of 16 so the target is now charmed.
** If the target had hit the wizard, the spell would have been interrupted, the spell lost and all accumulated spell attack points are now gone.
I think a few things that can help is:
1. DISTRACTION ADVANTAGE: If a fighter is next to an enemy, if that enemy attacks something else, it gets a free attack.
2. INTERPOSE: If an enemy tries to pass the fighter, the fighter gets a free attack (like an OA, but I want that to not be a general ability) and knocks them down/back/something. *Not grid specific.
3. COVER: If an enemy targets an ally the fighter can take the attack on himself. The fighter must be next to the ally target, or the enemy attacking the ally to do so. (Think Caramon with his shield protecting Raistlin while he casts a spell so it doesn't get interrupted. It might be good if this was combined with my save-or-die solution**.
I like what Marking tries to do, but I don't like Marking. It should be simplified. I suppose they did that with auras, but auras are still too grid specific.
I'm sure there are other things that can be done.
** Save-Or-Die solution (it's more a start to a solution rather than a finished fix.
** Lower the chance of likely success to 1in3 or 1in4, and they can be cast continuously through multiple rounds until they succeed, so it probably takes 3 or 4 rounds to get a success like a normal sequence of whittling down hit points before defeating the enemy - but with special outcome.
** Getting hit while casting a spell disrupts it and the wizard stops casting it as it is lost.
** Perhaps the wizard casts a charm spell. The target has 30 hit points. He rolls the spell attack for 10 points - no effect. Next round the fighter hits the target for 14 points knocking the target down to 16 hit points. The wizard keeps casting the charm uninterrupted. He rolls the spell attack for 8 points. The spell attack of 18 is higher than the target's hit points of 16 so the target is now charmed.
** If the target had hit the wizard, the spell would have been interrupted, the spell lost and all accumulated spell attack points are now gone.
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
One major problem I had with marking was that a creature could only have one mark on him. Why couldn't two fighters or the fighter and the paladin both mark the same target? What is it about marking that means both characters couldn't be putting the ol' stink eye on the same target? It seemed to be the metagame determining that rather than some sort of coherent in-character rationale.
Savage Wombat
Hero
I disagree with "aggro" for the "takes control away from the DM" reason.
That said, I agree with the desire to have fighters be better able to protect the other members of the party. Mechanics that make the fighter difficult to evade would do this better in my mind.
I wonder if abilities that allow the fighter to interrupt the movement of another opponent, and prevent their further movement that round, would be a better way to accomplish this. Like "Once per combat, you may make a normal move at interrupt speed. If you move into or adjacent to a square that an opponent is attempting to move into, you may end their move. You gain a +2 to AC vs. any attacks from that foe for this round."
I know it's terrible, but I think the idea comes across.
That said, I agree with the desire to have fighters be better able to protect the other members of the party. Mechanics that make the fighter difficult to evade would do this better in my mind.
I wonder if abilities that allow the fighter to interrupt the movement of another opponent, and prevent their further movement that round, would be a better way to accomplish this. Like "Once per combat, you may make a normal move at interrupt speed. If you move into or adjacent to a square that an opponent is attempting to move into, you may end their move. You gain a +2 to AC vs. any attacks from that foe for this round."
I know it's terrible, but I think the idea comes across.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Marking works much better as a term when you realise it's meant to be what's meant by marking in football or basketball. The fighter is the guy in your face. Manute Bol might not be as skillful as Michael Jordan but he's a foot taller and when he's busy crowding you you pay attention.
Urgh. That takes a lot of tracking and trying to force the enemy's thought processes. With marking the choice is simple - hit the marker or ignore the person in your face and possibly get smacked.
We use coloured paperclips to track conditions. Different colour for each PC's mark.
That said, the Defender Auras of Essentials (which effectively do the same job as marking everyone around the defender) seem to run that much more smoothly. It also means that if someone's in two defender auras, he can attack either without trouble - but if he even thinks of attacking someone else he's in deep, deep trouble.
You're thinking of a mechanic that requires ACTIVE tracking whereas I'm talking about a mechanic that requires PASSIVE tracking.
The simplest example, without meaning it to be the actual answer or a working system, would be to say that tank classes have AVERAGE defences whilst every other class has HIGH defences.
That wouldn't require active tracking because it's already incorporated as part of the basic system. Now I'm not saying it should work exactly like the above and again stress that it's just an example meant to illustrate my point, but it seems to me that it would be FAR easier to track and manage than an ACTIVE threat system like marking.
They did try and justify it at some points with things like 'if two fighters are both trying to 'get in someone's face' they're in each other's way as much as anyone else's, but what it boiled down to is that a really good strategy with multiple marks on one target is to get 4 defenders and 1 leader, then mark everything. Anything that does anything gets ganked by OAs before it can even move. While an all-defender party is viable, it shouldn't be viable because it outdamages strikers while having no weaknesses.
I'm fine with some gamist reasoning to allow players to actually interfere with monsters. Pre 4E it was amazingly simple to ignore the fighter and beat on the wizard - there were no penalties.
Lets face it folks, Dungeons and Dragons is a game. And if a particular mechanic makes the game a lot more fun, then it's probably a good mechanic, even if 'that guy' can point out some way where 'oh my god this corner case just does not make any sense.' Hell, the entire Cleric class doesn't make any sense, why does God only hand out miracles once a day?
Gold Roger
First Post
I'd prefer not to be edged in on how to play monsters by rules.
If that means good games with good DMs and terrible games with terrible DMs, that will just be how it is anyway.
Advocating antagonist behavior is the sole freedom of DMs in a normal combat. Take away my choices, I won't DM. Simple.
If that means good games with good DMs and terrible games with terrible DMs, that will just be how it is anyway.
Advocating antagonist behavior is the sole freedom of DMs in a normal combat. Take away my choices, I won't DM. Simple.
I do not understand this.
The class you want the monster's attacking is the one that they can... hit the easiest?
This example, sense it does not make.
Huh? So the Fighter in Full Plate should be easier to hit than the Wizard in robe? How do you explain that? And why would any group put the AC 15 Fighter on the front when they have an AC 20 Wizard?
As for tracking aggro as DM, I'd simply not bother. It just creates fiddly things to keep track of, without improving the game I run.
