The defender's masochism

[Skyscraper]

Defenders in 4E aren't trying to attract attention.
Nor are they discouraging attacks on allies.

They just hold up a sign stating:

"I'm the baddest, toughest, and strongest guy around and I'm gonna kill you!!"

It's not their fault enemies tend not to ignore the sign.
Maybe because defenders ain't play around.
They kick butt and drink ale.

haha

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There's a difference if you want, but knowing that the base premise in a battle is that two teams (the "PCs" and the "monsters") are attacking each other until one slays the other, saying "don't attack my friends" is equivalent to saying "attack me" from where I'm standing. They're not starting from a standoff where everyone has the choice to attack or not; they're in a battle, the fighter, on his turn, moves in and marks his opponents. There is a difference in terminology to which I agree, but the end result is essentially the same.

If I die of a heart attack tonight, I'm dead. I get buried. If you drive to my house, shoot me, feed me to my cats, tie them up into a bag, and throw them into the river, then the end results are the same, right? I'm still not here anymore. So no appreciable differences?

 

[Kingreaper]

There is an obvious tactical reason that relates to weapon reach why pikemen are installed behind shieldmen/swordmen in mass battles where the military unit can dispose its troops shoulder-to-shoulder. This has nothing to do with marking or other defender abilities that suggest to enemies to avoid attacking allies

So
A system used in battle whereby a group of warriors try to prevent their enemies attacking their allies by getting in the way, and threatening them.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with:
A system used in battle whereby a particular warrior tries to prevent their enemies attacking their allies by getting in the way, and threatening them.

I'm sorry, but your logic makes no sense. You say that it's never been seen in history, but it has.
You say the fighter wants to get hit, and is masochistic, but actually the fighter is defending their allies (an ALTRUISTIC, not MASOCHISTIC act)

Your views do not agree with reality.

 

[mkill]

[MENTION=48518]Skyscraper[/MENTION]: The _mechanic_ is different, the _result_ is similar. However, the different mechanic does change the table experience, and for the better.

Anyway, as for historic examples: Greek phalanx, Roman legion turtle formation, medieval forlorn hope...

The idea is to have a unit in the center of the battlefield to grab the enemies' attention (with varying chance of survival). Then, you have archers to shoot from the back and cavalry to attack the flanks (4E strikers). It's an ancient principle.

 

[JonWake]

Honestly, Defenders are a somewhat hacked solution to a bigger problem in turn-based combat games. In a real fight, if you try to move around a bodyguard, they move with you. You can't run a wide arc around a guard to get to your target because the bodyguard will move to intercept you, push the client out of the way, and keep himself between you. (And this is what we're talking about, right? Because bodyguarding and aggressive fighting are very different things.)

You can't really model this in a turn-based, gridded combat without messing around with multiple turn sequences in game. Defender mechanics are trying to square a circle. It only looks elegant if you take it out of context.

I favor giving some characters the ability to interrupt enemy movement or attacks. Let characters make a Move to Intercept, or a Defend Ally action out-of sequence. It's actually more flexible while requiring fewer tracking mechanics, and lets a character who wants to bodyguard or cut off advances to feel like a mobile warrior.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I favor giving some characters the ability to interrupt enemy movement or attacks. Let characters make a Move to Intercept, or a Defend Ally action out-of sequence. It's actually more flexible while requiring fewer tracking mechanics, and lets a character who wants to bodyguard or cut off advances to feel like a mobile warrior.

But it takes more time to resolve. Say you give the Fighter the ability to move out of turn any time anyone moves closer to their "client"....Now, each time an enemy takes a step, you have the player of the Fighter looking to see if he can now move. It may also require him to move back and forth and back and forth to block multiple enemies.

Say you give him the ability to swap spaces with his "client", you have the same problem. Each time he uses it, you step out of the normal flow of combat in order to resolve his ability. Then, the DM who is controlling the monsters has to sit back and think how the movement affects the strategy of the monsters.

It requires nearly as many tracking mechanics...it requires the Fighter to be paying attention for the triggers of his abilities. You have to track which PC is currently his "client" or whether he is allowed to defend everyone. If it's a matter of getting "closer", then you need to check each square of movement to see if the PC can activate his power.

Contrast that to the average scenario for marking:
PC: He's marked to me, remember.
DM: Right, he attacks you.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Marking was only invented because of the general numbers bloat.

Huge piles of hitpoints that must be agonizingly whittled down stretched out the length of combats meaning that more incoming damage than ever had to to funneled somewhere because the monsters average hp were so many magnitudes above the PC's.

Enter the tank, a repository for damage that must be soaked up because the monsters will just not frikkin die.

Simple solution: faster combat period. As anyone who has ever played an MMO will know, there is no need to tank a mob that you can speedbump. If the monsters won't be chewing on your mage for 45 min to an hour then you have scant need of a meatshield.

You want combat to be a challenge you say? Well it still can be, only now its more like a real fight-do unto others before they can do unto you. Good old fashioned swiftness and violence of action will carry the day.

This is what happens when too much simulationism and detail get added to very basic and abstract systems.

The hit point is an abstraction as is a combat round of more than a moment or so. Trying to apply the level of detailed activity to such an abstract base is why it appears so clumsy.

D&D combat is supposed to be simple and quickly resolved. Once layers of complexity and lengthly combat times are draped over that simple base all the imperfections and flaws become crystal clear.

Bottom line: combat based in abstraction needs to stay quick and simple without looking ugly. If you want complex tactics and more simulationist moves then the very framework has to be changed from the ground up with the intent of supporting that.

 

[Kingreaper]

Simple solution: faster combat period. As anyone who has ever played an MMO will know, there is no need to tank a mob that you can speedbump. If the monsters won't be chewing on your mage for 45 min to an hour then you have scant need of a meatshield.

And for those of us who WANT to be able to defend our allies?

Oh, hey, look-at-that, you pretend like we don't exist.

In D20 Modern, I played a bodyguard.

I like standing in the way and stopping the wizard getting knocked down.

And if the wizard can take care of himself, if he can soak all the hits that the monsters get time to dish out?
Then it's not a fight, it's pest control.

 

[RangerWickett]

That would be an interesting split of the mechanics:

Your defender aura is 1 at heroic, 3 at paragon, 5 at epic.

Phalanx - Anyone who moves through your aura, you get to attack and stop their movement.

Bodyguard - Pick an ally in your aura. Any creature who attacks that ally, you can make an attack against as an interrupt.

 

[JonWake]

Bottom line: combat based in abstraction needs to stay quick and simple without looking ugly. If you want complex tactics and more simulationist moves then the very framework has to be changed from the ground up with the intent of supporting that.

Fair points on all accounts. Pushing for more and more tactical verisimilitude is a sucker's game: every step you take in that direction reveals a dozen more weird disconnects.

But if you absolutely HAD to have some way to make combat more complicated without throwing in a thousand exceptions, you could split combat into 2 phases: Movement, and Attacks. Everyone rolls initiative each round (make it 1d10 to avoid absurd levels of swing). Starting from lowest to highest, you let everyone move and declare targets. Then you move down the list, from highest to lowest to resolve attacks. Pretty much how Battletech does it.

Given, you've just doubled the length of each round. So there's that.