"Aggro"

[GreyICE]

Marking is useful because it provides a rational mechanism for tough characters to protect weaker characters.

Before, if the king had two bodyguards they were bodyguards because 'they said they were bodyguards.' With no real mechanism to protect the king, any sufficiently prepared party could speed kill the king in a round or two, and then basically run away.

With marks, they can't easily move away from the bodyguards, and can't easily attack the king - the bodyguards distract them, disrupting their blows, and generally hurt them badly if they try to beat on the king. Suddenly they better respect the bodyguards.

Similarly the fighter can bodyguard the wizard for the party. How many times in fantasy have you read "keep the orks off me while I cast this spell" or some variation? With marks you have a mechanic to actually do that, rather than the DM occasionally being nice to you.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

I get it, low AC makes enemies more inclined to attack the target, but the purpose of tanking is to keep damage off your allies, and also not take damage yourself.

If we compensate for a low AC by having high damage reduction, we really haven't gained any ground. The tank still remains an unappealing target because even though the enemies can hit him, they aren't doing damage.

Now, if we're looking at a system where higher armor=more damage reduction, and Ac comes entirely from dex bonus, then yeah, we'd have damagers/healers who are hard to hit, and tanks who are hard to damage, but easier to hit. That'd probably be a functional setup.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Except you're using enemy intelligence scores exactly as this mechanic. And as I pointed out in my OP, "DM's discretion" doesn't have any requirement for having a rational basis.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Personal experience:

The most recent D&D 3.5 campaign I played in featured our (generally very good) DM making almost all of the creatures we fought choose targets based on MMO style aggro. Literally, at times he would be trying to think of who did the most damage to a creature last turn so that he'd make the monster attack them this turn.

I hated that.

I was playing a house-ruled variant wilder with the ability to put out enormous amounts of damage. So I routinely got targeted by monsters, even those who should have been intelligent enough to attack based on other criteria, simply because I put out a lot of damage in a single round.

Do you know how I reacted? I started scaling back the damage. I couldn't play my character to his potential or he'd die too often.

It's pretty absurd to me for that to be in D&D. There are so many more effective ways to deal with threats than to just target whoever is hurting you the most. Heck, in some cases you might want to get *away* from them, and go after someone else.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personal experience:

The most recent D&D 3.5 campaign I played in featured our (generally very good) DM making almost all of the creatures we fought choose targets based on MMO style aggro. Literally, at times he would be trying to think of who did the most damage to a creature last turn so that he'd make the monster attack them this turn.

I hated that.

I was playing a house-ruled variant wilder with the ability to put out enormous amounts of damage. So I routinely got targeted by monsters, even those who should have been intelligent enough to attack based on other criteria, simply because I put out a lot of damage in a single round.

Do you know how I reacted? I started scaling back the damage. I couldn't play my character to his potential or he'd die too often.

It's pretty absurd to me for that to be in D&D. There are so many more effective ways to deal with threats than to just target whoever is hurting you the most. Heck, in some cases you might want to get *away* from them, and go after someone else.

So, your problem, if I'm reading this right, was that you put out HUGE damage, and wanted to get away with that scott free? I hate to tell ya, but even if you've got a great distraction in real life, if you're unloading the most firepower, you're going to be considered the biggest threat.

I can understand the feeling that perhaps your DM took things a little too far, but I mean, if I'm running a group of enemies and one guy does 5 points while you do 50 points, you're going to be the target.

 

[GreyICE]

Even in 4E if you're playing the glass cannon striker who can do a million points of damage, a competent DM will ignore the marks and slap you into next week. Hell, an important principle of 4E is that the defender can't handle everything. He can just take a few monsters out of combat and generally hold off a lot of irritating stuff quite well. Everyone is expected to be able to take at least a few swings.

Don't min/max a character, optimize

 

[Kzach]

I get it, low AC makes enemies more inclined to attack the target, but the purpose of tanking is to keep damage off your allies, and also not take damage yourself.

Holy crap. I said it TWICE. It was merely an example to illustrate a concept, NOT a working bloody system. And yet everyone is picking it apart as if this is the house-rules forum. Geezus.

Let me spell it out for you: you can have ACTIVE mechanics or PASSIVE mechanics; I'm advocating a PASSIVE mechanic.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Should the DM be the only thing that determines what an enemy attacks?

Yes.

 

[GX.Sigma]

AD&D had something like aggro, didn't it? I've never played it, but a quick glance at OSRIC reveals a few nuggets (emphasis mine):

It is only possible to make a melee attack when the two combatants are within 10 ft of each other. Two combatants within ten ft of each other are considered to be “engaged.” When faced with more than one opponent, it is not possible to pick which opponent will be the one receiving the attack; in the rapid give and take of melee, any one of the opponents might be the one to let down his guard for a moment. When a character is in melee with multiple opponents, the target of an attack roll must be determined randomly

Fighting Retreat: A character may retreat backward out of combat, maintaining his or her defence, although the attacker may follow if not otherwise engaged. It is possible to parry while doing so, but not to attack. This manoeuvre may be used to “switch places” with another party member who is in combat, the first party member joining battle with the enemy to prevent the enemy’s pursuit while the second character makes a fighting retreat.

Wouldn't that be alright for a gridless D&DN?

 

[GreyICE]

Holy crap. I said it TWICE. It was merely an example to illustrate a concept, NOT a working bloody system. And yet everyone is picking it apart as if this is the house-rules forum. Geezus.

Let me spell it out for you: you can have ACTIVE mechanics or PASSIVE mechanics; I'm advocating a PASSIVE mechanic.

The fact that your suggested passive mechanic sucks makes us question whether it is practical at all.