Tabletop Aggro

[Stormonu]

Here's an idea I've had to manage aggro in an original game.

Each player has a certain color of stone. Whenever they attack the monster, they add in some number of stones to a bag. More damage = more stones. The "tank" would have attacks which do relatively low damage but put in disproportionately more stones.

Then the monster draws stones from the bag to determine who it attacks.

Back in previous editions of D&D, I often used damage to sort of track "aggro". If I didn't have a clear choice who a creature would attack, usually the person that had caused it the most damage (or hit it last if damage per PC was fairly close) was the target of its next attack. Of course, this could often mean the wizard (or backstabbing rogue) would end up the target if he were too close, because he dropped some whopping spell on his enemies. Of course, in those cases, I don't think its unreasonable that creatures would turn their attention against such attackers just to keep them from doing it again.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

One other thing that's worth mentioning is taunting that has no direct mechanical effect, but can effect GM decisionmaking. I have often taunted enemies as a PC, by saying insulting things, trying to anger them, making a Diplomacy or Intimidate check, or even just saying "I try to draw their attention." In my experience, that often has an effect, particularly if I come up with a good taunt and the enemies are undisciplined. (Obviously, your mileage may vary--this is highly dependent on GM.) If I'm fighting elite disciplined troops, I don't really expect it to work, but if I'm fighting tough but not very bright ogres...

When I'm GMing, I try to plan attacks with an eye towards the monster's motivation. Some monsters are tactically motivated; some latch on to a foe and pound until dead (in either direction ); some attack whoever hurt them worst/most recently; some target healers; and many can be influenced by PC actions and taunts.

In other words, one way of handling "aggro" like mechanics is through the discretionary decisions of the GM, perhaps with some skill checks along the way to influence (but not determine) GM response.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cool! This thread delivers. I've been looking for some new ways to manage enemy targeting.

FFZ, by default, uses the following enemy targeting guideline, just because it happens to be the most effective:

1. First, look for the lowest defensive value (Stamina if you're making a physical attack, Willpower if it's magical)
2. Then, look for the lowest HP total with that defensive value.
3. Finally, if the other two are fairly equal, look for their damage potential against you.
4. When possible, concentrate fire on one target.

Dumb enemies, of course, might not follow this.

Part of why this works is because FFZ doesn't have exact positioning. There's no "in front of" or "behind" really.

One of the basic things an FFZ character can do to manage aggro is to take full defense for a round. This jacks up their Defensive values, and makes them less appealing targets.

This would fall into a pro-active "attack anyone who isn't me" mechanic. In MMO parlance, it would reduce your aggro. You could make this a hide or invisibility ability of some sort.

There's also the "whenever you hit this guy, you hit me instead" idea behind a paladin's Cover ability. Combined with the ability to take full defense, you could effectively make a monster hit the highest Defense in the party instead of the weakest, forcing them to go for someone more in the middle. In some situations, a paladin will automatically cover someone who is low on HP, which is very chivalrous, but might end badly for the paladin...

Provoke might not force an enemy to attack you, but it might actually give them a bonus to hit you. And when they do, you counterattack with all sorts of horrible things.

Runic is an interesting aggro management tool, since it doesn't discriminate between allies and enemies -- it absorbs the next magic used. This means you manage your turns more, perhaps goading the enemy to using a weaker or less effective power.

And then you have the DM-side aggro management.

The "drawing stones" idea can be reflected with a "random target die," with higher "stones" and higher damage and healing and the like getting more possible results on the die.

I like a lot of the other ideas in this thread, too. Very cool!

 

[Stormonu]

One of the basic things an FFZ character can do to manage aggro is to take full defense for a round. This jacks up their Defensive values, and makes them less appealing targets.

While giving up your whole action sometimes make sense, I really think there should be a lesser means to modify "aggro" - perhaps, let's call it Stance.

Aggressive Stance: You want creatures to target you instead of others; perhaps you step up to block an enemy, taunt the opponent, wildly swing to draw the creature's ire or whatnot. This does not actually alter your defense, but for purposes of determining aggro, drops your apparent defense (making you a "juicier" target). How far you can drop your apparent defense is a factor of class and level. To use an aggressive stance, you must make an attack or perform an action that requires a contested roll against the enemy(s). The apparent change to defense is based on class and level.

Neutral Stance: Your average stance; no modifiers. You can take any sort of action.

Passive Stance: You try to make yourself look less intimidating or otherwise draw off attention. Like aggressive, this does not actually alter your defense, but for purposes of determining aggro, raises your apparent defense (making you a less appealing target). You can't use passive stance if you attack an enemy (but you could heal allies or perform other actions).

 

[I'm A Banana]

While giving up your whole action sometimes make sense, I really think there should be a lesser means to modify "aggro" - perhaps, let's call it Stance.

Well, in addition to jacking up STAM and WILL, taking the Defend action in FFZ will also heal your HP and MP, and up your Speed, and can put you in the Back Row, making you more likely to survive in subsequent rounds. So it's not exactly just blowing a round on nothing but defense -- you heal, recharge some abilities, and get to go earlier on the next round. It's a little closer to a Second Wind mechanic that you can use over and over again, if you really want.

But yeah, in D&D, choosing to be a kind of target probably shouldn't be a Standard Action.

 

[Dausuul]

These are the general methods I can think of offhand:

#1: Punish the enemy for attacking or not attacking a certain target. (This is the basis of most of 4E's aggro management techniques. Fighters get a free attack if a marked foe attacks anyone else; paladins deal radiant damage; et cetera.)

#2: Directly compel the enemy to attack or not attack a certain target. (Usually involves mind control magic. Confusion is a good example.)

#3: Alter the enemy's perceptions so that it thinks a different target is more promising. (Illusion magic is the usual method, though some systems allow the use of Bluff-type skills to achieve the same effect. Often depends on the DM to run the monsters in good faith and not come up with a bulls*** justification for why they ignore the illusion.)

#4: Similar to #3, "bluff" the enemy by having a tough, defense-oriented character use a high-damage attack to seem more threatening, while the real threat lies low and waits for the opportune moment. (In 4E, for instance, the fighter could lead off with a daily attack while the wizard casts at-wills.)

#5: Make a different target actually more promising, by manipulating defenses, hit points, positioning, and so forth.

 

[IronWolf]

One other thing that's worth mentioning is taunting that has no direct mechanical effect, but can effect GM decisionmaking. I have often taunted enemies as a PC, by saying insulting things, trying to anger them, making a Diplomacy or Intimidate check, or even just saying "I try to draw their attention." In my experience, that often has an effect, particularly if I come up with a good taunt and the enemies are undisciplined. (Obviously, your mileage may vary--this is highly dependent on GM.) If I'm fighting elite disciplined troops, I don't really expect it to work, but if I'm fighting tough but not very bright ogres...

When I'm GMing, I try to plan attacks with an eye towards the monster's motivation. Some monsters are tactically motivated; some latch on to a foe and pound until dead (in either direction ); some attack whoever hurt them worst/most recently; some target healers; and many can be influenced by PC actions and taunts.

In other words, one way of handling "aggro" like mechanics is through the discretionary decisions of the GM, perhaps with some skill checks along the way to influence (but not determine) GM response.

Thanks! I had been struggling to put my thoughts on aggro into words, but your post echoes what was dancing around in my head.

I had a player in a PbP just last week ask how do I get "aggro" from these critters attacking us. I cringed. I answered simply with, taunt them, call them names, try to anger them, get their attention - all of which I suggested be done through roleplaying or possibly positioning and such.

Fighting the less than disciplined orcs that they were, I would have as a GM tried to play the orcs accurately, and if the character had thrown out some taunts or done anything that I would think would divert more attacks to the character doing so without a need for mechanics to cover it.

Of course, as Cerebral Paladin says this method is subjective and success can be highly dependent on GM and maybe that's why people want to see more game related rules for this aspect. As for me and my table I would rather just rely on the GM to make decisions on how critters act based on how characters act - taking into account discipline of the critters and any other determining factors. I trust my GMs with these decisions and I hope players in campaigns I run trust me with those decisions.

 

[MichaelSomething]

#5: Make a different target actually more promising, by manipulating defenses, hit points, positioning, and so forth.

This is the one I wanted to talk about. There could be a defender class that gives incentive to attack him over his allies. What if a monster got +2 to attack/damage against him, or a +1 on a recharge roll, or maybe 4 temp hit points when they hit the encouraging defender?

 

[karlindel]

Dausuul has a good list of ways to do it, although I think #5 is a bit too much of a catchall (for example, it encompasses #1).

Ways of convincing enemies to attack certain targets:
Demonstrate the ability to heal allies and/or yourself
Demonstrate the ability to deal significant damage
Increase or decrease defenses or resistances (or enemies' bonuses to hit or damage someone)
Limit enemy movement options (slowing or immobilizing them, creating damaging terrain, surrounding them)
Increase or decrease enemy damage against a particular target

As another example of a game that has a mechanic like marking, Legend of the Five Rings 4th Edition has the Guard action, which lowers your defenses and increases those of the person you are guarding.

 

[Camelot]

That guard action sounds really cool.

I'm really anticipating the sneak peak of the knight on Friday. I want to see if Essentials continues using the same marking mechanic, or if they make it easier.