Another Big Playtest Post from Michele Carter

[Andor]

Long before I want to see aggro managment, I'd like to see the return of monster morale.

Hungry critters do not fight to the death. (Although starving ones might.) Cowardly goblins should not fight to the last man like Leonides vs the Persians. There should be a difference between fighting fierce Orcs and cunning Gnolls. And Zombies are scary because they don't stop comming.

 

[FadedC]

I'm pretty sure they recently outright said that there would be no aggro mechanic. Abilities that force a target to attack you have been in the game since at least 2nd edition.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Long before I want to see aggro managment, I'd like to see the return of monster morale.

Hungry critters do not fight to the death. (Although starving ones might.) Cowardly goblins should not fight to the last man like Leonides vs the Persians. There should be a difference between fighting fierce Orcs and cunning Gnolls. And Zombies are scary because they don't stop comming.

I agree with that.
Something as simple as threshold of numbers/percentage HP at which the opponents retreat (tactically) and a second threshold at which they flee in panic.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm pretty sure they recently outright said that there would be no aggro mechanic. Abilities that force a target to attack you have been in the game since at least 2nd edition.

I thought that as well, then went back to the news article and clicked through to what was actually said rather than what was summarized: the aggro mechanic was dead for the Fighter was the exact text.

 

[nerfherder]

I agree with that.
Something as simple as threshold of numbers/percentage HP at which the opponents retreat (tactically) and a second threshold at which they flee in panic.

Yeah - how did BD&D handle it again? It was something like a number you had to roll over (or under) once they had suffered 50% casualties.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I thought an intersting comment in the blog was

Fortunately, we were able to get to him with healing, including a strike from Valenae that heals bloodied allies.

To me this seems to strongly imply that some healing may work on "Bloodied" status targets, while other healing (like a Warlord's inspirational healing) may not.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Oh totally, but I don't see the difference (if there indeed is a difference) ever becoming so great as to make this noticeable. More that fighters are slightly geared towards large fights, while paladins are slightly geared towards fighting a big bad.

Again though, thats letting the paladin have the glory. Screw that. Until the fighter gets to be important out of combat, no one should be showing him up once initiative is rolled.

 

[Vael]

Again though, thats letting the paladin have the glory. Screw that. Until the fighter gets to be important out of combat, no one should be showing him up once initiative is rolled.

Agreed. I'm thinking back to the last podcast, the fighter was described as very nasty in melee, able to take a lot of attacks of opportunity. That, to me, is what sets him apart from the paladin, if the fighter is in your way, you ignore him at your peril. So, comparing the different Defenders, the Paladin can draw monsters to him, the Fighter can punish those that try to ignore him, and the Swordmage (when he comes out) can use magic to make sure he's going to be where the monsters are, and his allies aren't. If balanced well, all three shticks should do the job of Defending, though some may be better in some situations than others.

 

[Zogmo]

"Plus One Sword" is crap, too, of course. But everybody's used to it. The distinction is between "some out-of-character jargon" and "more out-of-character jargon." The game has a ton of jargon already...and some stuff that engages the imagination. I would rather not have more jargon front and center. I would definitely rather not have characters saying to each other in-game "Merloc, don't we need another striker for this adventure?" even if they're already calling things plus-one swords or whatever. It's not a binary issue, it's cumulative.

This immersion problem is stemming from the GM and it has a very simple solution.

You just need to make a rule that when your players characters are talking it must be in character and they are not to use any of the "rules" lingo.

Also, you leading by example when you talk to the characters, you too must use the same way of speaking that you enforce upon the players characters.

It's worked for me and the other GM's I know for a long time and it immensely promotes the immersion factor. It may take a bit of prodding and reminding while playing but once they are in the habit it's very fun.

 

[Zogmo]

One thing to keep in mind is that with a growing amount of options and the "dilution" of what a class title actually means, it's pretty helpful to include secondary role descriptions in the class make-up. In earlier edition, a Fighter was a Fighter, a Magic-User was a Magic-User, a Thief was a Thief, etc. , and everybody knew exactly what was meant with that. By now, that's not so clear-cut anymore...and the PHB never was an "in-game manual for the aspiring wizard/man-at-arms/conman/insert class flavour" but a book that explained the game to the players, including the roles of the classes. And if the conversations shift from "Damn we're missing a first-aid-kit, Michael, you play a cleric" to "Damn, we're missing a defender, Michael plays the paladin", that's not much of a difference in my book.

No difference at all. You are completely right.