D&D 5E [+] What can D&D 5E learn from video games?

[jmartkdr2]

Following up on this idea, I haven’t really played any MOBAs myself, but I did get into Overwatch for a bit, which combines MOBA elements with FPS gameplay, and one thing I noticed is that tanks there do manage aggro, in a sense. It’s just that instead of “agro” being a numerical value that you increase or decrease with your abilities and the computer uses to determine NPC behavior, you manage the other players’ actual attention by selectively applying pressure. The enemy team knows it’s not in their best interest to shoot at you (assuming you’re the tank) because you’re the hardest character on your team to kill. Your job is to pressure them, to make yourself enough of a problem that they can’t afford to ignore you, even though they know that shooting at you is literally less valuable than shooting at your team’s healers or DPS characters. Accordingly, a lot of tank characters are just as offensively powerful as, or even more offensively powerful than, the DPS characters, with DPS characters’ main advantage over tanks actually being their mobility.

4e’s marking mechanics and various Defender powers imitated aggro-as-numerical-value from MMOs. But since that proved unpopular, maybe 5e would do better to embrace the aggro-as-pressure model from MOBAs.

It sounds like how it works (when it works) in some other ttrpgs like 5e and PF2 - you're defense options are "be hard to land an attack on" (ie paladin) "be hard to kill when hit" (ie barbarian) and "don't be there when they want to hit you" (ie rogue). This works well enough in my play experience - enemies don't ignore divine smites just because the paladin had plate and a shield - they try to find way to deal with the paladin quickly (but that means the wizard has time to set up some crazy stuff).

 

[Reynard]

There's actually an RPG that does this. Icon. Each class has a limit break technique that they learn at level 2 or 3 or around there. I'm not 100% sure on how the rules for it work, but if I remember correctly you spend a particular resource to perform the limit break and this resource is gained by deliberately NOT resting between combats.

Limit Breaks appeared in Exalted 1E many, many years ago.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Limit Breaks appeared in Exalted 1E many, many years ago.

Exalted 1e limit breaks weren't powers, though - they were rp fail-states for when you had too much moral stress and went AWOL.

 

[Charlaquin]

I honestly do not believe that marking was an unpopular mechanic.

I loved it! But I do remember a lot of people complaining about it at the time. But maybe that was just my local sphere.

 

[Reynard]

Exalted 1e limit breaks weren't powers, though - they were rp fail-states for when you had too much moral stress and went AWOL.

It has been a long time, and I only wrote fluff at the time.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I loved it! But I do remember a lot of people complaining about it at the time. But maybe that was just my local sphere.

I think there were complaints but it was not a showstopper. Not like the rage and scorn for stuff like "Come and Get it" or the very idea of Daily and encounter powers.

 

[overgeeked]

I think there were complaints but it was not a showstopper. Not like the rage and scorn for stuff like "Come and Get it" or the very idea of Daily and encounter powers.

Marking was weak sauce re: aggro or focus management. A minor penalty for not attacking the defender isn’t enough for a non-computer. Something like advantage to hit the tank and disadvantage to hit anyone else would work better. The idea being to make it too good to pass up.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Marking was weak sauce re: aggro or focus management. A minor penalty for not attacking the defender isn’t enough for a non-computer. Something like advantage to hit the tank and disadvantage to hit anyone else would work better. The idea being to make it too good to pass up.

Most of the actual marking powers were pretty good, but marking alone was weak. Definitely a salvageable idea.

But making it core to the game was one of the too-far steps 4e took. Admittedly I probably wouldn't have tried it without being forced to, but at this point I'd gladly grab aegis of assault on any 5e gish character. It's dashed effective. I just wouldn't try to make it a core class feature of a swordmage class (and would hesitate to make it a subclass feature rather than just a spell)

 

[overgeeked]

Most of the actual marking powers were pretty good, but marking alone was weak. Definitely a salvageable idea.

But making it core to the game was one of the too-far steps 4e took. Admittedly I probably wouldn't have tried it without being forced to, but at this point I'd gladly grab aegis of assault on any 5e gish character. It's dashed effective. I just wouldn't try to make it a core class feature of a swordmage class (and would hesitate to make it a subclass feature rather than just a spell)

Swordmage was the best. Loved that class so much. Loved the kite-tanking style. So much fun. Focus on the teleports and bamf around the map. The single most fun class I’ve ever played in a branded D&D game.

 

[Charlaquin]

It sounds like how it works (when it works) in some other ttrpgs like 5e and PF2 - you're defense options are "be hard to land an attack on" (ie paladin) "be hard to kill when hit" (ie barbarian) and "don't be there when they want to hit you" (ie rogue). This works well enough in my play experience - enemies don't ignore divine smites just because the paladin had plate and a shield - they try to find way to deal with the paladin quickly (but that means the wizard has time to set up some crazy stuff).

I think that’s how it should work in theory. The problem, in my experience, is that the characters who should be the tanks don’t really have the tools to apply enough pressure to make themselves a higher priority target than the casters. I think this may be due in large part to the fact that the tanky classes are usually more focused on single-target damage, while the casters are the ones with the AoE. Not sure about true MOBAs, but a least in Overwatch, this tends to be the opposite. Tank heroes kits are built around allowing them to take space. Different heroes accomplish this in different ways, but generally they have some way to mitigate damage to themselves and/or nearby enemies, ways to do heavy damage to and/or debilitate single targets, and ways to occupy multiple targets. DPS heroes rarely have much AoE capabilities, and when they do they’re usually more about area denial rather than mass killing power. And the supports are generally the squishiest, in contrast to D&D where they’re often pretty sturdy.