NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7704697" data-attributes="member: 5890">My experience with traditional D&D was not at all like that. Monsters behave differently depending on numbers, intelligence and the role playing of players. They certainly didn't default to charging the fighters and ignoring the rest of the party, especially since the front line was typically the rogue searching for traps...On the contrary, AIs originally did have that assumption. For a long time the first person to attack a creature or walk into a room in a MUD was that monster's target for all eternity. Later on, mechanics to switch that around evolved, but typically the monster continued to attack whomever had used whatever taunt mechanic had been used. The threat minigame was added much later, and more as something for the tank to actually do, as opposed to "hit your rescue mechanic, have lots of hitpoints and lots of armor".3.x characters typically relied on AoOs to lightly punish movement. I think this was more for the sake of keeping mapboards condensed than anything else. Certainly if a foe wanted to go punch the wizard he could do so, but the fighter could feel happy he'd punched the foe first.I don't really recollect any push for fighters to get threat mechanics, and certainly the knight isn't representative of the goal of MMO-style threat nor the actual result. There's not a minigame there for the knight to be playing, just a button to hit when he feels like sacrificing himself for the party. If anything it's making the fighter's role less complex, not more.The new knight is moving pretty close to the 4e defender mechanics with marking and provoking from the mark, plus upping the number of OAs.</blockquote>

Verification