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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 3883846" data-attributes="member: 9053">I wanted to thank TwinBahamut, WolfSpider, and Gloombunny for taking a moment to answer my question. For some reason this topic has stirred up a serious amount of anger that frankly I don't get, but the three of you have pretty much explained the problems to me.It seems like we're talking two entirely separate problems here that are at best tangentially related. In MMORPGS, we largely have a technology problem where characters and monsters can move over each other and get at weaker characters even if there are stronger meat shields in front. I see that as largely a technology issue, and an agro system makes some degree of sense if you want to have fragile characters like wizards not be constantly dying.With that in mind, it seems like there's also a problem that wizard-like characters are simply too weak, and martial characters just can't do enough damage to compete for top of the food chain in terms of what will draw monsters attention. To me that sounds like a game play issue, and something that relates a lot more to D&D.D&D does have a system where monsters can't just attack squishy, protected wizards without consequences, but a fair bit could be done to make that easier to work with. If I remember correctly, there is a feat that let's you stop a character's movement with an AoO (outside of making a trip attack, which would obviously do that if it's successful).Additionally, I play a Crusader in a current D&D game who has a stance that gives any of my friends +4 to their AC from attacks by any opponent that I threaten. Add to that a shield block counter that gives a bonus to AC, and I find that I get attacked about 75% of the time, which works for me fairly well.It seems like building on those mechanics would be a more effective way to create the desired goal of making a tank like character the preferred target: if you make that character essential to the defense of the group, they have to be the first to fall.Beyond that, making the fighter or similar character comparable to the wizard in terms of the damage they can do seems to make even more sense: if you can't ignore the fighter to get to the wizard, you largely have to deal with the fighter first.With all of that said, is there room for some kind of taunt/trick action in D&D that forces the hand of your opponent? I think there is, but I would put it in the realm of NPC only actions, much like how you can't use Diplomacy on a PC. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an effect in the game that could make an intelligent but low-willed opponent made enough to focus their attacks on the source of their aggression. I just think that the abilities of the Knight are not worded in the best way possible.It seems like 4E will not be doing much in this area, which will likely be a good thing, because if the designers can't make something that's both fun and interesting, what is it doing in the game in the first place?Mike Mearls blog pretty much says all of that...they tried it, it didn't work, and now it's gone. From what everyone is saying, it certainly seems to me like exploring the possibilities of such rules was a good thing, something that would serve to streamline the game significantly if it was done right. As they couldn't find a way to do it right, it's not going in the game. What's the problem?--Steve</blockquote>

Verification