Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 3882426" data-attributes="member: 32536">Not really. In many videogame RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series, enemies essentially attack at random. In other games, like Fire Emblem, they always go for the enemy they will hurt the most, with the least risk to themselves from direct counterattacks. As such, you can't really say that Aggro rules (in which the idea is based on targetting the one doing the most damage to the monster) is universal.Certainly, the most iconic element of Aggro rules, tanks using a &quot;taunt&quot; or other move with artificially high aggravation qualities in order to draw attention to themselves, is far from universal. More often, there are no characters so squishy that a tank is necessary, there are enough characters that you can form protection formations with a line of tanks, or tanks have abilities that let them actively interpose themselves between a monster and an ally the moment before an attack. The whole idea of a tank working by tricking the monster into willingly attacking the tough guy is certainly an aspect of MMORPGs, is very rare elsewhere, and is a very problematic system.I am glad that the WotC guys are trying out new things and exploring potential systems to make playing a defender character work, but I am even more glad they ditched the idea of using aggro rules. Such rules are easily the worst solution I have yet seen to the team defense problem.I would be much happier if the rules were such that the monster will always want to target the damage-dealers and healers, but simply can't, because every time he tries, the tank gets in his way and knocks him back.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 3882426, member: 32536"] Not really. In many videogame RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series, enemies essentially attack at random. In other games, like Fire Emblem, they always go for the enemy they will hurt the most, with the least risk to themselves from direct counterattacks. As such, you can't really say that Aggro rules (in which the idea is based on targetting the one doing the most damage to the monster) is universal. Certainly, the most iconic element of Aggro rules, tanks using a "taunt" or other move with artificially high aggravation qualities in order to draw attention to themselves, is [i]far[/i] from universal. More often, there are no characters so squishy that a tank is necessary, there are enough characters that you can form protection formations with a line of tanks, or tanks have abilities that let them actively interpose themselves between a monster and an ally the moment before an attack. The whole idea of a tank working by tricking the monster into [i]willingly[/i] attacking the tough guy is certainly an aspect of MMORPGs, is very rare elsewhere, and is a very problematic system. I am glad that the WotC guys are trying out new things and exploring potential systems to make playing a defender character work, but I am even more glad they ditched the idea of using aggro rules. Such rules are easily the worst solution I have yet seen to the team defense problem. I would be much happier if the rules were such that the monster will always want to target the damage-dealers and healers, but simply can't, because every time he tries, the tank gets in his way and knocks him back. [/QUOTE]

Verification