D&D 4E Hate or aggro rules in 4e

[The Souljourner]

Not necessarily. I think of it as running around a monster to distract it while other characters move into position. Certainly that's valid, and this is the only way to do it under the current rules.

Exactly! It's not metagaming at all, it's tactics that the in-game characters would be sure to know and use. They know that if they run around like a chicken with their head cut off, the giant will smack them, but they know that if the giant it concentrating on them, he won't also see the mage sneaking off to the back to get healed.

When the party barbarian plops himself down next to a giant, he has no incentive whatsoever to move. In fact, he has a strong disincentive against moving. If he moves, he sacrifices his full attack, he eats an AoO for moving away, and since the giant has reach, he's going to eat another AoO if and when he moves back in in another round or two. His best course of action is just to stand there and swing at the giant until either he or the giant goes down.

Full attacks are the only thing that make moving away from someone a tactically sound choice in the first place. If moving didn't stop the giant from making a full attack, why would you ever move away from him? And except for avoiding a full attack from the giant, the barbarian in your story has no tactical reason to move away from the giant, even with no AoO.

Do you remember the earlier editions? There were no full attacks or AoO in those games, and yet people weren't flitting about the battlefield in those games either. You walked up and wailed on someone until one of you died.

Yes, I think it's a problem with the system that there's not more ability to influence the battlefield by movement and positioning, but removing AoO and full attacks will only make it worse, not better.

if you watch any kind of smaller hand-to-hand combat - boxing, martial arts, fencing, whatever - you'll see that the combatants do move around quite a bit, using as much of the area as they're legally allowed to. If you were to add in things like cover and high ground, movement would be even more of a factor.

Or, for a fantasy example, take Westley's fight with Innigo Montoya in The Princess Bride. They moved all over the ruins, used walls for cover, went up stairs, etc.

Ironically, I was specifically thinking of using fencing and the fight between Wesley and Inigo to support my point. In that battle, I contend that they were mainly taking 5' steps. They jockeyed for position and pretty much never moved any significant distance in one shot (except when Inigo got disarmed, and Wesley pretty much actively forwent his AoO and let Inigo flip down and pick up his sword). Fencing in general does not use very large movements. Anyone who tried to run 10' back without their little two-step maneuver would get the point of a foil in their chest (or back).

If you take away AoO and full attacks, the only tactic left is "run away and hide behind cover" and that's just not fun.

-Nate

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hell no. NO "aggro" rules. Even reading the word "aggro" makes me want to maim people.

Plus, this is no "stupid" computer game with a "stupid" cpu that needs to calculate how much some critter hates you. That guy behind what we in the genre call the "DM/GM/ST Screen" is there for a reason, you know. Actually, he's there for lots of reasons, and one of them is making enemies smart and decide for themselves who they want to eat next, without anyone "forcing" them who to attack.

 

[blargney the second]

Iron Guard's Glare rocks. It strongly encourages the enemies to focus on you without forcing their hand. It only works against creatures you threaten, so it decreases in value as you go up in levels because reach becomes much more common. That's as it should be for a first level stance. It simply contours the combat landscape to funnel attacks towards you.

It's a great mechanic because it is likely to provoke a specific behaviour without making it mandatory.
-blarg

 

[KarinsDad]

IGG requires that the character using it threaten the foe and be adjacent to the ally. Tactically speaking, it's possible to negate it with a five foot step.

It's also possible to not be able to negate it with a five foot step.

.A.
BCD

There is no place A can 5 foot step to negate this for C protecting B and D, and still be able to attack either B or D with a standard non-reach weapon.

Only in the following case could it be negated with a 5 foot step (assuming non-reach weapons):

.A
.BC

where C is protecting B (and C does not have a spiked chain).

And yes, with a Spiked Chain, a PC could protect up to 8 other PCs around him against up to 14 non-reach opponents, including this example here.

A party remaining adjacent to enjoy its benefits is not flanking, and is extremely bunched up and thus a prime target for AoE and lacking the ability to threaten dispersed opponents.

Sure. No doubt.

It has a specialized use. But, that does not negate the extreme advantages of that specialized use.

This has a huge benefit for front line Fighters.

If you're comparing it to buff effects, then IGG still comes up short in my opinion. Sure, it's unlimited use, but a good buff will usually affect the whole group, and will continue to provide its bonus without the party jumping through a hoop every round.

But a buff effect can be dispelled. A buff effect (typically without metamagic) cannot be used 24 hours a day. A buff effect is limited to the number of times per day it can be done. A buff effect typically does not provide a -4 penalty (or basically a +4 bonus), usually it's +1 or +2 until real high level. A buff effect typically cannot be initiated with a Swift Action.

One has to look at overall balance, not just one aspect.

You are correct that Area or Mass Buff spells allow PCs to disperse, but they do not have the significant advantages of IGG as well.

For what this is useful for (protecting a group of PCs from melee combat), it is huge and in melee, except for a possible Flanking ally, usually a line of Fighter types is already bunched up and being used to protect an entire party flank.

Giving several "front line" fighters an effective +4 to AC against most melee opponents is huge.

The fact that you can apparently call Persistent, Mass Mage Armor is 9th level spell effect with a straight face means that our ideas on balance are so far apart that we might as well be on different planets anyway.

Are you saying that IGG is not the equivalent of a 9th level spell?

Or are you saying that Persistent Mass Mage Armor would not be a 9th level spell?

I can understand the former opinion, but the latter is following RAW. Mass spells add 4 to the level and Persistent spells add 4 to the level.

Even if IGG is not equal to a 9th level spell, it's still overpowered to the point of being broken. Even if it is only the equivalent of a 5th level spell.

 

[blargney the second]

KarinsDad, have you actually played in a game where IGG was being used? If so, what was the party composition and level?
-blarg

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

To me, the problem lies in the way D&D handles combat altogether. Consider a fighter acting as bodyguard for a wizard against, say, an orc. How can the fighter make sure the orc doesn't come close to the wizard? Realistically, when the orc steps close to the wizard, the fighter steps in between them. In D&D, this is not possible, because when someone moves, everyone is frozen.

How to solve this?

In the ancient SF:tSG game from White Wolf, initiative was handled in a top-down fashion: First, the slowest character moves. At any point, though, a character with higher initiative may interrupt them and make their actions. Characters with still higher initiative can interrupt those, and so forth, and so on. Of course, this way initiative needs to be rolled every round again, but it naturally solves the problem of the tank wanting to guard a teammate: interrupt the foe and block its path.

Of course, if there are more opponents than tanks, one of those may pass through while the other is blocked; that is realistic, too. And if the monster is really quick, the tank will simply not act fast enough to block its path... That would be a pretty simple solution to the problem, and does not require quasi-mystic evil eye stances of any sort. Those can be added later, for fun...

 

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad, have you actually played in a game where IGG was being used? If so, what was the party composition and level?

No. I was just glad it never happened.

However, in our last game with a Bo9s PC, this was the composition:

We had a Warblade (AC 19), a Rogue (AC 17), a Druid (AC 16 and his wolf AC 14), and a Cleric (AC 20) at first level.

If the Warblade had taken it, he could have boosted the AC of the Druid and Cleric to 20 and 24 respectively at first level (it would have rarely helped the Rogue, but it could also help the Wolf). In this group, everyone pretty much fought in melee (although the Rogue later on went to Sorcerer and the Cleric went to Warmage).

It's a lot more potent than Leading the Charge (which is what he took).

Since you asked the question, does this mean that you think that it cannot be broke unless playtested to prove it? Just read Souljourner's note: "Yes, my DM bitches about it constantly.". So, you should probably find out exact details from Souljourner's DM. Course, all of us have played the game enough to know how much a "Total Defense" for an ally (or more than one ally) at the cost of a Swift Action (or even no action) is worth.


As a side note: I went back and checked Bo9S. Your allies do not need to be adjacent to you to use this. You can protect the Sorcerer behind you 50 feet from a ranged attack as long as you threaten the attacker. So, this can be used in Flank situations as well. It's even more useful than people led us to believe.

 

[Victim]

Or are you saying that Persistent Mass Mage Armor would not be a 9th level spell?

I can understand the former opinion, but the latter is following RAW. Mass spells add 4 to the level and Persistent spells add 4 to the level.

No, it's not. The level of increase on Mass versions of spells varies from +1 to +4 (maybe more, if you count Weird as Mass Phantasmal Killer). There is no straight +4 for mass spells.

Similarly, Persistent is worth +6 levels in 3.5.

However, since Mage Armor already lasts hours/level, there's generally very little gain to be made from Persisting it. By the time a character could cast persistent spells, they'd already have a mage armor that functionally lasted all day. Also, Mage Armor's low level makes using simple recasting to extend the duration more economical than using metamagic in many cases. Moreover, the long duration of mage armor means that it can readily be applied outside of combat - the ability of a mass spell to affect many targets with a single combat action is not much of an improvement. So there's no way I'd consider a Mass Persistent Mage Armor to 9th level. Even 5th level would be a stretch.

Anyone can 'dispel' the benefit from IGG simply by attacking the crusader using it. If the crusader uses a spiked chain to improve his ability to use IGG, then his defensive advantage is lessened and thus the penalty for being 'forced' to attack him is reduced as well. Also, a spiked chain crusader using IGG is not using Thicket of Blades - the expected choice for a reach build. So either everyone using Thicket is stupid, or it is an even higher level spell effect.

If A can't deal with either the crusader's defensive advantage, or the IGG penalty to his attacks, then he is going down to the 3v1 no matter what. If A is powerful or has lots of friends to 5 ft step around to the sides and get past the IGG, then it's still not much of an issue.

When I played a crusader, most of the time the party didn't bother to stay in IGG range. The ability to engage enemies across a broader front was more valuable than the AC boost (or more valuable than steering attacks to my character). Granted, as a general rule most my group's combats take place in more open areas, often with threats coming from different directions. A simple line of fighter types is then insufficient for protection. If you spend all your time in tight spaces where the party is often forced into remaining adjacent by terrain, then IGG probably is much better.

 

[blargney the second]

I see. Reads badly, does it?

First off, a minor correction: IGG doesn't improve AC. It gives enemies you threaten a -4 penalty on attacks against your allies. While close to the same thing, they're not identical and it can be important sometimes.

Second, there are quite a number of options opponents have:
1) Attack from range or reach.
2) Move away and attack someone else.
3) Attack the glaring guard.
4) Attack despite the penalty.
5) Use a targeted or AoE effect.
6) Use tactics to flank and aid another to mitigate IGG.

Those are things that my DM has done when faced with my crusader's Iron Guard's Glare, just off the top of my head. I'd say he does them all with about the same frequency.
-blarg

 

[KarinsDad]

No, it's not. The level of increase on Mass versions of spells varies from +1 to +4 (maybe more, if you count Weird as Mass Phantasmal Killer). There is no straight +4 for mass spells.

Similarly, Persistent is worth +6 levels in 3.5.

Mass Bear's Endurance/Cat's Grace, etc. are +4.
Mass Charm Monster is 4 (3 for a Bard who cannot afford 4 for a 3rd level spell).
Mass Cure/Inflicts spells are 4 (5 for Mass Cure Light for a Druid).
Mass Heal is 2 or 3 only because the core book does not allow for 10th and 11th level spells.
Mass Holds are 4.
Mass Invisibility is 5.
Mass Reduce Person is 3.
Mass Suggestion is 3.

The basic balance here is +4 levels for core spells. 16 out of 21 +4, 1 out of 21 +5, and 3 out of 21 +2 or +3 (and half of these due to spell level limits). So, 2 spells out of 21 are +3 due to the wimpiness of the spell. You are correct that it is not a rule per se, it is more a guideline that WotC typically follows because of balance reasons.

And, thanks for correcting my Persistent comment. I had forgotten that it changed.

However, since Mage Armor already lasts hours/level, there's generally very little gain to be made from Persisting it. By the time a character could cast persistent spells, they'd already have a mage armor that functionally lasted all day. Also, Mage Armor's low level makes using simple recasting to extend the duration more economical than using metamagic in many cases. Moreover, the long duration of mage armor means that it can readily be applied outside of combat - the ability of a mass spell to affect many targets with a single combat action is not much of an improvement. So there's no way I'd consider a Mass Persistent Mage Armor to 9th level. Even 5th level would be a stretch.

5th level is hardly a stretch. But, I concede your point that a Mass Mage Armor as a 5th level spell could last 9 hours at 9th level. But, IGG is still a 5th level spell equivalent (6th if one considers Extend Mass Mage Armor for 22 hours at 11th level), it still stacks with any other armor, it doesn't require casting a 5th or higher level spell, it can be done at first level, etc.

The main downside is that the Crusader has to threaten the attacker. Isn't that his job???

Anyone can 'dispel' the benefit from IGG simply by attacking the crusader using it.

Only if they knock him unconsious (or do something else that seriously prevents him from using it). Hardly a proper and fast dispel.

If the crusader uses a spiked chain to improve his ability to use IGG, then his defensive advantage is lessened and thus the penalty for being 'forced' to attack him is reduced as well. Also, a spiked chain crusader using IGG is not using Thicket of Blades - the expected choice for a reach build. So either everyone using Thicket is stupid, or it is an even higher level spell effect.

Nice try. The Spiked Chain is irrelevant to your analysis here except for AC of the Crusader.

Thicket of Blades can be used with IGG, regardless of melee weapon. In fact, ToB and IGG used with Improved Trip can be VERY powerful. One protects one's allies and gets to do all kinds of nasty things to anyone who tries to get past him to attack his allies.

The fact that opponents might attack him is mostly irrelevant. It's much easier to heal one PC ally in combat than it is to heal multiple ones. The aggro aspect of this makes the PC's jobs easier, not harder.

When I played a crusader, most of the time the party didn't bother to stay in IGG range. The ability to engage enemies across a broader front was more valuable than the AC boost (or more valuable than steering attacks to my character). Granted, as a general rule most my group's combats take place in more open areas, often with threats coming from different directions. A simple line of fighter types is then insufficient for protection. If you spend all your time in tight spaces where the party is often forced into remaining adjacent by terrain, then IGG probably is much better.

IGG can protect allies, even if they are not adjacent to the Crusader.

Are you sure you were playing IGG to its full potential?