"Aggro"

[Crazy Jerome]

I think the real problem in D&D is that focus fire is too cheap and easy. It's a good tactic to focus fire when you can get away with it. In D&D, you can nearly always get away with it. So it becomes less of a tactic and more of a powergaming habit. Fix that, and you won't need much guidance or other stuff to get a more natural fight.

Most of what I had to say in the way of a solution, I proposed here, with some nice ideas from several others: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...verted-interrupts-focus-fire-combat-flow.html

 

[Janaxstrus]

Snip

It should be handled by the DM as always. No mechanic is needed, this isn't World of Warcraft.

 

[GX.Sigma]

One difficulty is that any mechanic has to be lightweight enough to run at a table. 4e's mark system is lightweight enough...

I believe any core mechanic must be lightweight enough to be run at any table. Including an old wooden picnic table where the dice keep falling through the cracks, with no miniatures or accessories because you're in the middle of the woods.

You should only really need paper, pencils, and dice. (I know you can technically play 4e with no grid, but that's like playing poker with no cards.)

 

[Minigiant]

No mechanic at default. The DM handles it.

"But have it as a module"
Marking
Magic challenges
Goading

 

[Sunseeker]

It should be handled by the DM as always. No mechanic is needed, this isn't World of Warcraft.

So? This isn't Call of Cthulhu either but both games use dice.

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.

It is a bit metagamey, but basically it breaks down to essentially an infinite loop of AoO's. Orc hits paladin, fighter gets a hit, if the orc keeps hitting the paladin, the fighter gets to keep hitting, if the orc decides to hit the fighter, now the paladin gets to blast his mark. Now certainly there were some caps on the number of AoO's a character can get in a round, but having a double-marked target basically makes that target incapable of taking any actions. Even the npc's should have some choice, total lockdown is not fun for the DM.

 

[YRUSirius]

Why not roleplay it?

-YRUSirius

 

[Kzach]

The class you want the monster's attacking is the one that they can... hit the easiest?

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?

Sigh. It's responses like this that make me think getting a perma-ban would be worth it.

Seriously, guys, read my entire post and figure it out for yourselves.

 

[Wiseblood]

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.

What about tying it to morale? The designers indicate that some form of mechanic will be present. Could this one do double duty? I am probably not going to use morale but it will be nnice to see a rating that will help inform my decisions.

 

[Kzach]

Why not roleplay it?

-YRUSirius

You're right. We don't need no steenkin' rules! Away with editions! Away with rule sets! Just roleplay it ALL!

 

[Janaxstrus]

So? This isn't Call of Cthulhu either but both games use dice.

Let me make it more clear for you then.

In World of Warcraft, there is no GM, thus no one to make decisions on who attacks whom. As such, they would have to either program in "Creature X always attacks spellcasters" "Creature Y always attacks fighters" etc etc. This would be easily defeated by smart players who bring in more of Class A when they fight Creature X.
In an MMO, it makes more sense to have a mechanic that allows flexibility for the monsters to attack those doing the most damage, or healing the most damage or other variables. Since they have a mechanic that allows a little more intelligence behind it, they need to have a way to allow the fighter/tank/whatever to protect the casters or rogues or whatever.

In D&D, we have a GM who is capable of making all of those decisions. There is no need for a mechanic to tell him who Creature X will always attack, or that Creature Y always attacks the one healing the most. He or she can decide "Hey, this creature has an intelligence of 2, it's not smart enough to go after the healer" or "Dragons are hyper-intelligent, he's going to try and smack down the priest first". With no need for artificial intelligence, there's no need for any type of "aggro" mechanic, whether that be psuedo-mindcontrol like in an MMO where creatures are forced to attack a certain creature, and I don't see a need for a "marking" type, personally, either.