"Aggro"

[Piratecat]

How much more obvious do I need to be?

The irony is that you're still talking about something different to what I'm talking about. You're talking about the example, and I'm saying the example is irrelevant since it was ONLY an example. And yet you're STILL saying, "But the example suxxorz!!!1!"

So I think it would be best if I just add you to my ignore list and be done with it.

Take a deep breath, guys. If you're getting angry, stepping away from the keyboard for a bit is far better than the alternative. It's fine if not everyone agrees about this.

 

[Oni]

Careful! Don't aggro the mods!












Thanks folks, I'll be here all week.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Not a fan of marks, but I'm okay with auras. Creatures that I threaten can attack another creature, but they take a penalty on attack and damage, for example.

Yes, marks can help make bodyguards into people that stop attacks, but I really don't like the non-stacking issue, for example. Why not just have a bodyguard mechanic (maybe via a feat)? If an ally adjacent to you is attacked, you can roll a Reflex vs the Attack roll (if the numbers are similar), and, if successful, the attack is used against your AC instead. Boom, you step in the way, block the attack on your shield (or push your ally out of the way and take a hit for him), which is both cinematic and effective.

This way, bodyguards can act as bodyguards. They can say, "get behind me!" and the mechanics reflect it: they try to completely intercept attacks (including ranged attacks now!) with a Reflex save (or something similar), and even if they fail, then their aura still gives a penalty to attack/damage (to simulate them messing up the attack to begin with). It's what I use for my RPG, and it's annoyingly effective sometimes. As always, play what you like

 

[rkwoodard]

marking vs. other manuvers

Hello,

How is marking any different than lets say Disarm or Sunder ? The PC is applying a negative effect on the DM controlled monster, right ?

Or for that matter, tactically setting up AOO?

Marking: Attack me or suffer mild damage and/or penalty

AOO: If you move away from me you suffer mild damage and/or penalty

Disarm: If I roll high enough, you lose your main attack until you pick it up....picking it up will cause you to suffer mild damage and/or penalty

As long as it is a condition/penalty/extra attack that the fighter imposes, not a "You MUST attack me", it is all pretty much the same from 3rd and 4th, and just a matter of details.

RK

 

[billd91]

They did try and justify it at some points with things like 'if two fighters are both trying to 'get in someone's face' they're in each other's way as much as anyone else's, but what it boiled down to is that a really good strategy with multiple marks on one target is to get 4 defenders and 1 leader, then mark everything.

But is it really "getting in someone's face?" Or is it just focusing your attention on the target? That's a description that's just as easily supported by the rule as getting up in the target's face. Moreover, how does the second fighter getting up in the target's face negate the first one's action doing so? I'd rather skin it as two fighters focusing on a target, which may doubly screw it should it try to ignore both of them.

As far as strategy, I'd rather that emerge based on my players' experimentation and preferences rather than rely on a metagame quirk.

Anything that does anything gets ganked by OAs before it can even move. While an all-defender party is viable, it shouldn't be viable because it outdamages strikers while having no weaknesses.

If that's a real problem, aren't things designed poorly for the PC roles? Is the defender the new wizard, at least with respect to strikers?

Lets face it folks, Dungeons and Dragons is a game. And if a particular mechanic makes the game a lot more fun, then it's probably a good mechanic, even if 'that guy' can point out some way where 'oh my god this corner case just does not make any sense.' Hell, the entire Cleric class doesn't make any sense, why does God only hand out miracles once a day?

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.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

exactly.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

The problem with this, as I discussed in my previous post, is that it engenders a rocket tag style of play. It diminishes the value of the sword and shield fighter, because that fighter deals less damage in return for better defenses, but the way to "tank" under such a system is to simply deal as much damage as humanly possible with the lowest possible defenses (making yourself the most desirable, priority target.

As such, it isn't a good approach (IMO) as it only supports the aggressive fighter. The issue is, the defensive fighter ought to also be viable from a mechanical standpoint. In order for that to be possible, the defensive fighter needs mechanical support.

 

[hanez]

In my opinion one of the best features D&D has over other popular games is its Dungeon Master. DM arbirtation, cocreation and imagination is what makes D&D so fun and such a different experience.

I disagree with the OP simply because it suggests to put a system in place where the DM could do it much better.

 

[GreyICE]

How much more obvious do I need to be?

The irony is that you're still talking about something different to what I'm talking about. You're talking about the example, and I'm saying the example is irrelevant since it was ONLY an example. And yet you're STILL saying, "But the example suxxorz!!!1!"

So I think it would be best if I just add you to my ignore list and be done with it.

Please do. Your proposed system makes zero sense, and pretty much every person here disagrees with you, and you still think that it's our fault for not understanding why your system is a really good idea, rather than a terrible piece of nonsense that we all seem to think it is.

I literally cannot visualize a way that your passive system would make sense and work well, yet you continue to yell at me without explaining a damn thing?

Put me on the ignore list! Put everyone who doesn't like your ideas on the ignore list! Soon you'll be talking to yourself. Which will change the current situation... pretty much not at all.

Considering that I already warned you both, this just got you an infraction and thrown out of the thread. Learn to be polite to people, or don't post here: it's pretty much that simple. -- Piratecat