Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5762775" data-attributes="member: 2011">Not for all players.Again, not for all players.Of course. It's mostly opinion. The issue is one of flavor. There was no real concept of "aggro" a decade or two decades ago. The realism, fiction, flavor, verisimilitude, or whatever you want to call it has changed for Paladins. Although they were often in the front line, they didn't have an official job of gaining aggro.In fact, aggro was at the determination of the DM. If the Fighter was the biggest threat, the enemies often attacked him. If the Wizard was the biggest threat, the enemies often attacked him. If the Druid was the biggest threat, the enemies often attacked him.Aggro is a totally unrealistic and artificial concept shoved down the DM's and player's throats in 4E and one of the reason some people fled to Pathfinder or other versions of the game.If I'm fighting you and you are pressing me, there should be combat techniques for me to sidestep you and go fight the main threat behind you. Locking down a foe completely with no types of defenses or counters to that is totally artificial and that's a problem with the aggro mechanisms. There are no game mechanics counters to them shy of teleporting and even teleporting doesn't work against the Paladin's aggro mechanism.It gets worse realism-wise when the Defender has an aura or a multi-target market. How exactly is the Fighter or Warden pressing the guy in front of him and the guy behind him at the exact same time??? That's not plausible (and yes, someone is bound to through a stretch rationale out about it).Every mechanism in the game should have some way to effectively counter it and there is no way TMK to 'dispel magic" a defender mark shy of knocking him unconscious.Well, they seem pretty different to me. For one thing, the former doesn't result in forced movement of the recipient. For another, CA is a positional advantage which can be granted by mundane things like flanking or total concealment. It's not quite in the same ballpark of effectiveness or rarity or even magical-ness.I do agree that some creatures need to be immune. In Revenge of the Giants, some of the Giants are immune to Come and Get It. It's just a few creatures out of many thousands with the immunity isn't enough.My flavor beef with 4E is that magic doesn't feel like magic anymore. The game became a game of super heroes with everyone throwing out little conditions and effects all over the board (which is the number one problem with 4E, too many effects and conditions with differing types of durations on the board that have to be tracked).It's not just a balance issue of spells versus melee, it's that melee PCs can do supernatural type things that should be relegated to other power sources (e.g. Warlords healing). The balance in previous editions was that spell casters were squishy and melee PCs were tougher with better defenses in most cases. Now, spell casters are still squishy, melee PCs are still tougher with better defenses in most cases, but they both have similarly balanced super powers. For example, the spell caster can targets with a D6+4 close burst and the melee PC can target targets in a wpn+4 close burst (and the melee PC has more feats and better damage with the weapon, so his bursts tend to hurt more).I have a picture in my head of what D&D is and my "reality" of it was only nudged with 3E, it was absolutely shattered with 4E. Course, the reality of how we view D&D and the reality of game effects within D&D are two different things.My daughter never played 3.5 or earlier versions. For her, D&D means 4E and she'll might go through the same transitional pains that some of us went going to 4E when she goes to 5E.</blockquote>

Verification