Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arlough" data-source="post: 5906759" data-attributes="member: 79335">You actually touched on a number of things here that I have been pondering, but I'm going to stick to the thread topic.The thing you point out here that I find pertinent is that what you do is important.&nbsp; I would just like to add to that. How you do it may be what defines you in that role.What you are called, on the other hand, should be insignificant when discussing mechanics, especially of a game in it's larval state.If everybody here who had made an argument that involved the word &quot;Fighter&quot; could go back and re-evaluate that same statement if you had instead used the word &quot;Defender&quot; I would be most interested in how that would effect your view/statement.&nbsp; Do you think this is true?I don't really see why you can't have both.&nbsp; Morale informs when the enemies should run away, and &quot;aggro&quot; or &quot;marking&quot; informs how the enemies should be attacking.Both seem good to me.&nbsp; And both are subject to DM adjudication.As for me, I like the idea of &quot;aggro&quot; in a way that incentivizes certain targets and disincentivizes others.&nbsp; Similar to how they obviously envisioned Marking working, even though it didn't play out as they had planned.I like the idea of the &quot;defender&quot; type having a passive incentive/punishment mechanic.As for the fighter being the big threat by having the most damage and the biggest AC, that sounds &quot;kewl&quot; and all in 3rd person action platformer video games, but I prefer group synergy and dynamics to work around weaknesses more than I would like to have none.&nbsp; By that standard I could just create a character that had strait 18's and was great at everything, and then play out a short and boring game where I was never really challenged.&nbsp; Basically, I could be that Ed guy in the Twilight books. (I think it was Ed, but I really don't care enough to look it up.&nbsp; If any of you have read the books and care enough to correct me, feel free to do so.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arlough, post: 5906759, member: 79335"] You actually touched on a number of things here that I have been pondering, but I'm going to stick to the thread topic. The thing you point out here that I find pertinent is that [i]what[/i] you do is important. I would just like to add to that. How you do it may be what defines you in that role. What you are called, on the other hand, should be insignificant when discussing mechanics, especially of a game in it's larval state. If everybody here who had made an argument that involved the word "Fighter" could go back and re-evaluate that same statement if you had instead used the word "Defender" I would be most interested in how that would effect your view/statement. Do you think this is true? I don't really see why you can't have both. Morale informs when the enemies should run away, and "aggro" or "marking" informs how the enemies should be attacking. Both seem good to me. And both are subject to DM adjudication. As for me, I like the idea of "aggro" in a way that incentivizes certain targets and disincentivizes others. Similar to how they obviously envisioned Marking working, even though it didn't play out as they had planned. I like the idea of the "defender" type having a passive incentive/punishment mechanic. As for the fighter being the big threat by having the most damage and the biggest AC, that sounds "kewl" and all in 3rd person action platformer video games, but I prefer group synergy and dynamics to work [i]around[/i] weaknesses more than I would like to have none. By that standard I could just create a character that had strait 18's and was great at everything, and then play out a short and boring game where I was never really challenged. Basically, I could be that Ed guy in the Twilight books. (I think it was Ed, but I really don't care enough to look it up. If any of you have read the books and care enough to correct me, feel free to do so.) [/QUOTE]

Verification