"Aggro"

[GreyICE]

But there are also tipping points. It's easier to rationalize some gamist structures from an in-character perspective than others. This isn't a board game. This is a role playing game and the in-character perspective is an important element that doesn't exist for board games.

Again, rationalize the cleric. He only gets a little bit of help from his deity at level 1 because... what?

Is it because he's not pious enough? Maybe at level 1 all clerics are like 'meh, I heard about this god guy, he seems kinda neat' and by level 15 or so they're like 'oh, lemme tell you about Pelor! He's this great guy who is totally the best god..."

Or maybe God doesn't want you to really help people until you gain a few levels. Like 'oh man, that bugbear could easily be taken out with one sixth level spell, but God wants us to leave it alone and let it eat those villagers, because at level 1 there's no real way we could handle it.'

Or possibly people just don't count to any deity until they've killed a dragon or two. Maybe the lawful good deities are just like the evil deities - they don't really care about the average peasant, they just care about the people who can do cool things for them, and the cooler the things are the more they reward them. God as a crowd in the Roman Coliseum.

Or maybe it's a gamist structure that doesn't allow clerics to wtfpwn everything at level 1 even if they're very pious, because clerics wtfpwning everything at level 1 is bad for the game.

As Gygax said, the very concept of 'realism' in a medieval fantasy world with Dragons, Wizards, singing Bards who can change reality with their songs, Gods, Demons, and every other D&D element is... absurdist. Totally and utterly absurdist. If you think that a particular element doesn't make total, perfect, 100% sense in a world where a dragon can swoop down and turn into a beautiful prince to seduce the princess then leave her with half-dragon babies that she can bear without any real issue (lets go into the genetics of that for a second, shall we)...

 

[Guest 85555]

Again, rationalize the cleric. He only gets a little bit of help from his deity at level 1 because... what?

Even if one concedes your point here, why should we add in more irrational things to the game. Just because elements arguably dont make sense, that doesn't mean it is a good idea to layer on more nonsensical mechanics.

As Gygax said, the very concept of 'realism' in a medieval fantasy world with Dragons, Wizards, singing Bards who can change reality with their songs, Gods, Demons, and every other D&D element is... absurdist. Totally and utterly absurdist. If you think that a particular element doesn't make total, perfect, 100% sense in a world where a dragon can swoop down and turn into a beautiful prince to seduce the princess then leave her with half-dragon babies that she can bear without any real issue (lets go into the genetics of that for a second, shall we)...

Gygax was wrong. It is actually more important to maintain suspension of disbelief. Nothing absurd about wanting things to be internally consistent.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, aggro is like morale.

Do I need a mechanic to measure it? Probably not. A sentence guideline probably does me just fine: "Kobolds attack en masse, swarming a single character, and tend to target the weakest and most exposed. They don't fight fair, and they rarely stay to fight without a large advantage over their enemies. They tend to flee if they are ever reduced to less than 2-on-1 odds in their favor."

Could some folks use a mechanic to measure it? Yeah, sure.

Like a morale mechanic, I think I'd be annoyed if it was automatically a part of the assumed game, but I could certainly see room for that in a module.

I also don't think D&D is historically much interested in that aspect of the game. It's a small part of combat, which is itself only a small part of a much broader play experience. It probably doesn't deserve a whole lot of text dedicated to it.

 

[mcmillan]

Just have the fighter "generate a lot of threat" by being the most threatening character in the fight.

With apologies to those of you who don't watch American football, I don't play my fighters like an offensive tackle whose job is primarily to protect the quarterback. I play mine as a middle linebacker who needs to be taken down before I kill the opposing team's quarterback.

If DDN fulfills it's promise to make the fighter the best at "fighting", then he will be the one who needs to be accounted for. No more need for marking at that point.

I think an issue is that older versions were good at making the fighter into a linebacker (my impression, never had experience as a fighter pre-4e). 4e with the defender marks turned them into the tackle, and until the Slayer was released with essentials making the linebacker melee character meant reflavoring a ranger or barbarian. But both should be an option.

If Next keeps some kind of marking mechanic either there should be two fighter-like classes or marking should be something optional like part of a theme. Personally I think part of a theme would work better.

 

[billd91]

As Gygax said, the very concept of 'realism' in a medieval fantasy world with Dragons, Wizards, singing Bards who can change reality with their songs, Gods, Demons, and every other D&D element is... absurdist. Totally and utterly absurdist. If you think that a particular element doesn't make total, perfect, 100% sense in a world where a dragon can swoop down and turn into a beautiful prince to seduce the princess then leave her with half-dragon babies that she can bear without any real issue (lets go into the genetics of that for a second, shall we)...

And yet the sun still rises, things are still subject to gravity, fire burns and water freezes. The presence of some fantasy elements in the games doesn't require me to believe any and everything that comes along makes sense within the narrative of the game and our understanding of how it works with reality.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Shidaku, this is a great thread. I like your ideas, but ultimately....I still think "tank" is a dumb role. The only tank I find sensible is one who does lockdown - tripping, stand still, disarm, etc... to keep any enemies around him....around him. Aggro is a great simple solution to bad DMing and making the tank role feeling relevant. But ultimately I think it'd be better to just eliminate it and re-align the roles.

1. The Glass Canon / DPS: Does by far the most single target damage and is even capable of inflicting nasty status effects on one target such as blindness or stun, but has little or no means of effectively fighting off a large number of foes.
2. The Battlefield Controller: Does area of effect and multitarget stuff mostly. Can't do much of note against only one target compared to #1 and his debuffs are weaker in power, though he can hit every enemy with them and possibly inflict them more frequently. Also gets the wall spells, black tentacles, and other BFC to restrict enemies' ability to move.
3. The Buffer: Can grant the party haste, flight, and other strong buffs, as well as heal them. Has very few AoE offensive options, though more than #1, and is about as good as #2 for single target stuff.

All have similar defenses, and their own out of combat applications based on class. Who the enemy targets depends on what the enemy is and their priorities.

EDIT: Notes.
A) The names are just based on what they've been called in the past, obviously renames would be needed, as the "glass canon" is now made of plexiglass, and so forth.
B) Everyone gets some out of combat healing, #3 is just for in combat healing to get through the fight. As for "why not gank the white mage?" Welll...every edition has that problem. But if you make melee touch ranged healing effects much stronger than ranged ones, you end up with a guy who can keep himself alive really well, but if you Wall him off from his friends or something, that might be a better plan than trying to do more damage than he can heal. The buffs keep going...long enough...even if he drops, so if you fail to take him out early on, targeting him would presumably become much less beneficial use of your time.

 

[Libramarian]

Just have the fighter "generate a lot of threat" by being the most threatening character in the fight.

With apologies to those of you who don't watch American football, I don't play my fighters like an offensive tackle whose job is primarily to protect the quarterback. I play mine as a middle linebacker who needs to be taken down before I kill the opposing team's quarterback.

If DDN fulfills it's promise to make the fighter the best at "fighting", then he will be the one who needs to be accounted for. No more need for marking at that point.

Yeah this.

Marking looks to me like a kludge designed to recreate the tank/striker split for those coming to D&D from MMOs.

 

[YRUSirius]

"Hey you stinkin' bastard of a goblin wrench: I heard your mother likes roses!"

"Gnaaaarrhrhg!!!"

-YRUSirius

 

[Kzach]

Just have the fighter "generate a lot of threat" by being the most threatening character in the fight.

So you don't mind a metagame concept that requires a DM to subjectively determine the fighter to be the primary target over and above mechanically more dangerous characters, but you're not in favour of a mechanic that ACTUALLY makes the fighter the most dangerous character?

With apologies to those of you who don't watch American football, I don't play my fighters like an offensive tackle whose job is primarily to protect the quarterback. I play mine as a middle linebacker who needs to be taken down before I kill the opposing team's quarterback.

You don't happen to have an MMA reference handy? I hate football.

If DDN fulfills it's promise to make the fighter the best at "fighting", then he will be the one who needs to be accounted for. No more need for marking at that point.

That heavily depends on what you mean by 'the best at fighting'. If that translates to pure damage, then what need is there of the striker? Is a rogue now a fighter in light armour? What happens to the sorcerer?

 

[Thalionalfirin]

So you don't mind a metagame concept that requires a DM to subjectively determine the fighter to be the primary target over and above mechanically more dangerous characters, but you're not in favour of a mechanic that ACTUALLY makes the fighter the most dangerous character?


You don't happen to have an MMA reference handy? I hate football.


That heavily depends on what you mean by 'the best at fighting'. If that translates to pure damage, then what need is there of the striker? Is a rogue now a fighter in light armour? What happens to the sorcerer?

I think you misunderstood my analogy in your first question, but it leads into your third. I think the fighter becomes the biggest threat because it sounds like he's going to consistently put out the most damage.

Personally, I don't like the "roles" that seem to have emerged, especially as they have seem to be hardwired into classes. Others do, and I can understand that.

I've no idea what they have intended for the rogue so I can't speak to that. Perhaps it becomes the dealer of spike damage? Or it has combat tricks that harry opponents? Hard to say until they speak more about their intentions.

Same for the sorceror.

And sorry, don't really have a better analogy, especially for MMA. The latter is more of a one on one thing whereas football is more akin to a group vs group melee.