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: 6361592" data-attributes="member: 2011">I think that the concept of a sticky fighter comes straight out of WoW.To me, that's not D&D. The fighter should be able to hold down a foe or two maybe, but the other PCs should be fair game some or even most of the time (i.e. whenever the DM decides that they are).Creating mechanical ways to make a fighter stickier tends to take monster control out of the DM's hand and places it into the player's. I'm not a fan of that either. I like the DM to decide the targets of the NPCs, not the players or the rules.The rampaging Bulette should care less about the fighter and just go attack whomever it wants to. It will likely be the fighter once the fighter steps up and does a ton of damage, but that should be a DM decision based on how the DM thinks that Bulette should react.Not a supernatural power of a fighter (like stances and such) where he has 5 foes locked down (err, say what?). Fighters should have martial abilities, not supernatural ones.5 kobolds surrounding the fighter are prevented from attacking anyone else. Huh? How does the fighter keep track of more than 1 or 2 of those guys?This is a solution looking for a problem. Fighters not being sticky is not a problem. Players who are used to NPCs attacking the heavily armored PCs is the issue.Edit: Side note on this. If fighters become more sticky, it can lead to less tactical play on the part of the other players. There is not as much need to cast wall spells, or move back into cover, or other things if the game system has a sticky fighter. There might be a greater need to cast heals spells on the fighter. I personally prefer that the players come up with good tactical solutions to combat issues instead of having a black hole of NPC movement in the middle of the battlefield. JMO.</blockquote>

Verification