Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ChaosShard" data-source="post: 4289803" data-attributes="member: 55074">Having spent far too much time playing WoW (around 50 days worth of time /played on my tanking Warrior alone), I feel able to help straighten this whole agrro thing out.In WoW the Warrior, Paladin and Druid have 'taunting' abilities. These abilities force one or more enemies to attack the character that uses it for around 3 seconds. The mob (monster) has a slight chance to resist the taunt, in which case, it does whatever it was doing before, probably eating the mage.In 4e, the Fighter and Paladin mark the enemy, telling them that there are repercussions for not attacking them. The enemy/monster/npc is never forced to attack the character, although they risk damage for attacking others. In WoW, a monster is controlled and forced to act a certain way. In 4e any marked enemy is free to do whatever it likes, but it will know that the trained killer in front of it will pound on it the second it looks away.This system is a form of agrro control. In my eyes, however, there is nothing wrong with that. The Fighter and Paladin need some mechanism to protect their buddies, and the Goad (CW, I think) feat was (IIRC, please correct me if I'm wrong) a skill-check based form of the WoW Taunt, and forced the enemy to direct its attacks to you. The difference is that the ability is now<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/1.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":1:" title="One    :1:" data-shortname=":1:" />: A class feature, so it doesn't require spending a feat to obtain, and<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/2.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":2:" title="Two    :2:" data-shortname=":2:" />: Not designed to force the monster to do anything, only to give the enemy discouragement against attacking anyone else.</blockquote>

Verification