Eunstoppable
First Post
How is aggro "done" in this game? Does the DM just choose who gets blasted by the NPCs or is there some rule that I have yet to find in the DM Guide/PHB?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Aggro
- Thread starter Eunstoppable
- Start date
Usually the DM chooses who the monsters attack, taking into account the monsters intelligence and knowledge as appropriate. Some monsters have a basic "order of attack" listed in their tactics.
Generally - mindless creatures attack whatever is nearest them, animal intelligence attacks whatever appears most vulnerable to them, or whatever attacked them last, and more intelligent creatures attack based on their personal inclinations.
Eunstoppable
First Post
Much appreciated. This is basically how I did it except I didnt factor in the intelligence of the mob. I basically just attacked whoever attacked the monsters haha.
On Puget Sound
First Post
Note that creatures are aware of any conditions on them, so a marked, challenged or cursed creature may choose a target based on that knowledge, if it is intelligent. Note also that raw intelligence is not required for sensible tactics. Wolves can't tell a fighter from a mage, but they instinctively know how to flank.
DracoSuave
First Post
This is how Defenders make their 'mark' by making attacking higher priority targets unfavorable, through free attacks, radiant damage, etc.
Creatures attack whoever the DM is most irked at at the moment. 
No, seriously, what others have said. Play the monsters "logically". Mindless creatures just go for the nearest target -- randomly roll if there's several options. Semi-intelligent things will go for whoever is hurting them most. But intelligent monsters...that's where it's fun. Most sentient creatures understand that the first rule of tactics is ALWAYS "geek the mage", and many are willing to risk that -2 penalty if the fighter's marked them in order to take out the squishy guy in the robes. Monsters will use their synergies to full effect, as well, flanking to hit better or pulling away to use ranged attacks/avoid melee.
No, seriously, what others have said. Play the monsters "logically". Mindless creatures just go for the nearest target -- randomly roll if there's several options. Semi-intelligent things will go for whoever is hurting them most. But intelligent monsters...that's where it's fun. Most sentient creatures understand that the first rule of tactics is ALWAYS "geek the mage", and many are willing to risk that -2 penalty if the fighter's marked them in order to take out the squishy guy in the robes. Monsters will use their synergies to full effect, as well, flanking to hit better or pulling away to use ranged attacks/avoid melee.
DracoSuave
First Post
Agreed with Lizard.
Thusly the Fighter's job then becomes sticking to those guys like glue so that instead of going 'must target squishy' it becomes 'if I move to target squishy, Fighter will beat me up with an OA, and I can't go to target squishy. If I shift to target squishy, Fighter will beat me up with Combat Challenge, and I'll still take a -2 to hit that squishy. (your enemy is fully aware of the fact the Fighter's mark carries a bit more than a -2 to hit if he's in range.)
'If I don't do either and ranged attack the squishy, the Fighter will Combat Challenge me, THEN OA me. And -then- I'll get a -2 to hit the squishy.
'Darn Fighters ruinin' my fun.'
Playing a Fighter is a lot more interesting tactically now than 'I roll to hit. I hit. I do damage. Continue.'
PS: It gets even more interesting when you use Shield Push to put them one square away from their intended move target. Fighters make enemies sad pandas.
Thusly the Fighter's job then becomes sticking to those guys like glue so that instead of going 'must target squishy' it becomes 'if I move to target squishy, Fighter will beat me up with an OA, and I can't go to target squishy. If I shift to target squishy, Fighter will beat me up with Combat Challenge, and I'll still take a -2 to hit that squishy. (your enemy is fully aware of the fact the Fighter's mark carries a bit more than a -2 to hit if he's in range.)
'If I don't do either and ranged attack the squishy, the Fighter will Combat Challenge me, THEN OA me. And -then- I'll get a -2 to hit the squishy.
'Darn Fighters ruinin' my fun.'
Playing a Fighter is a lot more interesting tactically now than 'I roll to hit. I hit. I do damage. Continue.'
PS: It gets even more interesting when you use Shield Push to put them one square away from their intended move target. Fighters make enemies sad pandas.
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
Tactical considerations is what's important in 4E.
The Defender Marks provide an aggro-like feature, but they don't force anyone to attack the Defender, and instead add a new tactical consideration to the game.
"Do I take a -2 penalty to attacks and possibly immediate attacks? Or do I just hope I can kill the Fighter quick enough?"
Smarter monsters will adapt their tactics to those of the PCs, "dumb" monsters will stay to their standard tactics. (Wolfs may be good at achieving flanks, but they can't really cope with the tactical implications of Wizards using control spells and similar stuff. Kobolds will also like to flank, but they will also try to use terrain and identify their primary target based on the experiences with the enemies, not instincts.)
The Defender Marks provide an aggro-like feature, but they don't force anyone to attack the Defender, and instead add a new tactical consideration to the game.
"Do I take a -2 penalty to attacks and possibly immediate attacks? Or do I just hope I can kill the Fighter quick enough?"
Smarter monsters will adapt their tactics to those of the PCs, "dumb" monsters will stay to their standard tactics. (Wolfs may be good at achieving flanks, but they can't really cope with the tactical implications of Wizards using control spells and similar stuff. Kobolds will also like to flank, but they will also try to use terrain and identify their primary target based on the experiences with the enemies, not instincts.)
generalhenry
First Post
It should be noted that D&D is older than the notion of aggro.
While you're DMing picking targets tends to just come naturally.
Aggro is an MMO thing, the computer can't wing it, the computer needs rules. But while DMing I've never needed an aggro system.
The best part of not having an aggro system is 'fudge'. The PC should win every fight, but no fight should be trivial. It's an impossible set of criteria. The only way it works is by having the DM dynamically fudge the battles by altering the monster tactics. It's also possible to fudge the rolls, but generally fudging the tactics is good enough.
While you're DMing picking targets tends to just come naturally.
Aggro is an MMO thing, the computer can't wing it, the computer needs rules. But while DMing I've never needed an aggro system.
The best part of not having an aggro system is 'fudge'. The PC should win every fight, but no fight should be trivial. It's an impossible set of criteria. The only way it works is by having the DM dynamically fudge the battles by altering the monster tactics. It's also possible to fudge the rolls, but generally fudging the tactics is good enough.
While it's true that "aggro" as a mechanic is part of MMOs, it's a concept which is fine in RPGs -- even though the DM is using logic, not a formula.
Example: Last game, my Blood Magus unleashed a Sudden Maximized Firebrand on a swarm of Hill Giants. The giants, fairly dim types, HAD been throwing rocks at the big, tough, fighter types. NOW they noticed me.
Me:"I just drew aggro, didn't I?"
DM:"Yup."
Most "aggro rules" in MMOs make rough sense -- attack maximum damage dealers and healers. The main difference is the "taunt" mechanic, which allows tanks to increase aggro all out of proportion to how big a threat they actually are. 4e instead chooses to make trying to avoid the defenders a risky endeavour; a creature which just bulls past them might take so many otherwise unnecessary hits that it never even makes it to the squishy.
It's also fun to consider personal enmities and preferences. I've had characters who have made tactically "unsound" decisions because they really wanted to get one particular guy. Monsters may have an irrational hate for an individual PC, or a race, or a class. You can do anything in a tabletop RPG, so have fun with it!
You will quickly learn, by experience, how to choose NPC targets, to the point where it becomes intuitive.
(One thing I tend to do is to have enemies ignore 'downed' PCs -- PCs at 0 to -10 hit points. Not always, but most of the time.)
Example: Last game, my Blood Magus unleashed a Sudden Maximized Firebrand on a swarm of Hill Giants. The giants, fairly dim types, HAD been throwing rocks at the big, tough, fighter types. NOW they noticed me.
Me:"I just drew aggro, didn't I?"
DM:"Yup."
Most "aggro rules" in MMOs make rough sense -- attack maximum damage dealers and healers. The main difference is the "taunt" mechanic, which allows tanks to increase aggro all out of proportion to how big a threat they actually are. 4e instead chooses to make trying to avoid the defenders a risky endeavour; a creature which just bulls past them might take so many otherwise unnecessary hits that it never even makes it to the squishy.
It's also fun to consider personal enmities and preferences. I've had characters who have made tactically "unsound" decisions because they really wanted to get one particular guy. Monsters may have an irrational hate for an individual PC, or a race, or a class. You can do anything in a tabletop RPG, so have fun with it!
You will quickly learn, by experience, how to choose NPC targets, to the point where it becomes intuitive.
(One thing I tend to do is to have enemies ignore 'downed' PCs -- PCs at 0 to -10 hit points. Not always, but most of the time.)
