"Aggro"

[Mishihari Lord]

Without a "marking" mechanic, assassins can just stroll past the fighter and assassinate the king he's protecting. The fighter's only chance of stopping them is to kill them before they can walk past him. Such mechanics (or in this case, a lack thereof) promote a rocket tag style of play where MOAR damage is always king, to which I say no thank you.

I agree that this is a big problem, and that fighters should be able act as defenders. I think that marking is the wrong approach to fix it, though. My preferred approach would be to allow fighters to deny movement through an area, with some type of roll to not make it 100%.

A off-the-top-of-my-head example of this approach would be a "defender" feat. A fighter with this feat can designate a defendee, who must be an adjacent square. One per round he can physically interpose himself between an attacker and his defendee. He automatically moves between the two. The attacker may make a roll roll to bypass the defender and attack the defendee anyway. To do this he makes an attack roll against against the defender. The defender gains +5 to his AC for the purpose of this roll. A "hit" does no damage but allows the attacker to make a normal attack against the defendee.

Another good one would be a "hold the line" feat." A fighter with this feat prevents movement by opponents in any adjacent square. To move anyway, an enemy would need to make a roll to hit the defender with a penalty of -5. A hit does no damage but allows movement. (The attacker could choose to attack normally too) Also, if the defender does not move during his turn, he may take up to full movement during opponents' turns. (This allow interception of incoming attackers)

I can see a bunch of holes in these approaches, and there are other good approaches to take, but that's kind of the direction I would like to see it go.

 

[Dragonblade]

As a DM, I LOVE 4e's marking mechanics. When I play the monsters I like to go all out. My job as the monster is in most cases to annihilate the party. And I will do that in the most efficient and brutal manner possible.

I loathe having to role-play the monsters with one-hand tied behind my back, wondering if I'm not being "fair" by having the monster focus fire on one PC over another PC.

4e is the first edition where I feel like I can run the monsters to the full extent of their abilities and I don't have to worry about playing fair. The players now have a mechanical framework they can rely on that doesn't require DM fiat to adjudicate. As a 4e DM, I find it extremely liberating. I can just go after the party and be as brutal as possible, and its up to them to rely on their own tactics and class abilities to stop me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Please no. Aggro mechanics that force creatures to do something is weird. Punishment mechanics are ok though!

 

[Libramarian]

As a DM, I LOVE 4e's marking mechanics. When I play the monsters I like to go all out. My job as the monster is in most cases to annihilate the party. And I will do that in the most efficient and brutal manner possible.

I loathe having to role-play the monsters with one-hand tied behind my back, wondering if I'm not being "fair" by having the monster focus fire on one PC over another PC.

4e is the first edition where I feel like I can run the monsters to the full extent of their abilities and I don't have to worry about playing fair. The players now have a mechanical framework they can rely on that doesn't require DM fiat to adjudicate. As a 4e DM, I find it extremely liberating. I can just go after the party and be as brutal as possible, and its up to them to rely on their own tactics and class abilities to stop me.

I often see 4e praised for how it allows the DM to play as hard as the players without holding anything back. But then the 4e forum has a thread like this one. Most people are advising the OP to judge whether the monsters are intelligent enough to use optimal tactics, same as always.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm in the "I like the concept of marking, but not marking" camp.

In "real life", your armored fighters are also your greatest offense. You put armor on a tank, but its also one of your biggest guns. A machine gun nest gets surrounded by sandbags to provide protection. A medieval knight was the most badass thing on the battlefield.

In these scenarios, aggro tends to itself because your high AC guys are also your biggest offense. People are going to want to attack them anyway. But that's not true in Dnd. Wizards and Rogues bring the big pain but have lower ACs....the "glass cannon" as you were. So aggro makes mechanical sense to allow a high AC player to actually make use of his AC.


So I'm fine seeing aggro in the game, and I liked 4e's take on it (no mind control, just some enticing reasons to attack the defender). I just really didn't like the tracking pain that was marking. I think an aura system or some of kind of maneuver system could do the job more elegantly.

 

[BobTheNob]

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.

If we HAVE to use combat roles (grumble grumble) this is what I am more drawn to. At the end of the day, tanking is just a variant on controller. Think about, they take away the enemies ability to attack softer enemies = they are controlling enemy actions.

But really, to me, it comes down to the creatures you are facing having well defined behaviours. As [MENTION=44640]bill[/MENTION]91 pointed out very early in the thread, creatures should really have concise write ups how they react in combat.

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] made a point about zombies going for the softest target and avoiding the tank. Well, to me, zombies are brainless and wouldnt even know how to perceive a threat...they would go for the guy with the juiceist looking brain (Sorry wizards, come zombie apocolypse, you had better be prepared)

I like the idea of fighters controlling if they can and treating high defence and HP as an asset of the class. Meanwhile, dump threat mechanics and have creature behaviour well defined.

 

[Mattachine]

Interesting thought: many folks who don't like aggro mechanics (rules dictating creature behavior, rather than DM roleplay) want morale mechanics (rules dictating creature behavior, rather than DM roleplay).

Likewise, the opposite is true: folks who want aggro mechanics, but don't want morale rules.

Discuss.

 

[GM Dave]

I usually find that I don't have to do anything.

If I have monsters move on the 'squishies' then the 'squishies' start to scream like little piggies for help.

From a game perspective, I'd just have some encounter design advice.

1> Avoid having all the exact same monster. One it is dull and two it tends not to push everyone's abilities.

2> Give monsters goals in fights. A little tactical planning from the GM on what to do if X happens. If you were a 'monster' and had some sort of mind then you'd think of a few things on what you'd do if something tried to attack you. This includes things with animal intelligence. Truly mindless creatures (zombies and such) are often given some sort of 'programed' orders to follow.

3> Give varied terrain. Terrain and obstacles forces players to make choices on where to try and form choke points and where they might find themselves exposed. Used well, it can be a successful way to focus aggression on the ones that you want and used badly can leave you exposed to danger.

 

[Fifth Element]

I agree that this is a big problem, and that fighters should be able act as defenders. I think that marking is the wrong approach to fix it, though. My preferred approach would be to allow fighters to deny movement through an area, with some type of roll to not make it 100%.

The 4E designers had that covered with Combat Superiority. An enemy hit by a fighter's opportunity attack triggered by movement has to stop moving. This applies whether the enemy is marked or not.

 

[Dragonblade]

Interesting thought: many folks who don't like aggro mechanics (rules dictating creature behavior, rather than DM roleplay) want morale mechanics (rules dictating creature behavior, rather than DM roleplay).

Likewise, the opposite is true: folks who want aggro mechanics, but don't want morale rules.

Discuss.

I don't like either one. And 4e doesn't really have aggro mechanics. 4e marking gives defenders some mechanical options and counters to protect their fellow party members if monsters choose to ignore them. But the DM still has control over what the monsters do.