Why is the WoW influence a bad thing?

[Grog]

In contrast, D&D is a position-based game with collision detection. A monster attacks the fighter instead of the wizard because the fighter is between the monster and the wizard.

Actually, that isn't the case at all. Say a fighter and a wizard are being threatened by an orc. In real life (assuming that wizards and orcs existed in real life, of course), the orc would advance on the wizard and the fighter would step in between them - simple enough.

But in D&D, if the orc wins initiative, he simply charges the wizard and takes a big chunk out of him with his axe. There is nothing the fighter can do until his turn comes up. And, depending on the positions on the battlefield, even if the fighter wins initiative, the orc may be able to get around him to attack the wizard without taking an AoO.

I really hope this is something that 4E addresses, especially given their plan to make combat more mobile.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

True enough. This historically, has been something that D&D has rarely got right. The optimum tactic for a monster is to nuke the squishies (wizard, rogue) first, while ignoring the fighters. (Oddly enough, this is the tactic of WoW PvP, where there is no threat.)

Most DMs play monsters sub-optimally, and have them attack/target the fighter (at least initially, until the wizard does something the monster can't ignore) because it is more "fun". 3E and AoOs tried to add a mechanical reason for doing this, but I'm not sure they fully suceeded.

It's basic resource management..."if I kill the guy who's easier to kill first, I take less damage overall, enabling me to kill the tougher guy who doesn't hit as hard."

As is, in 3.0/3.5, there's no mechanical reason for a monster to attack a plate wearer instead of a squishy if they have the opportunity. It's hard to adjudicate an aggro mechanic, because it's bookkeeping, and the poor DM's head will explode. The Knight's Challenge thing is better, though it doesn't always work like people think it does.

I'd think some sort of intercept capability would work and not be too painful. Like, if the ogre starts swinging at Stabby McStabstab, Clanky McClankClank can politely suggest "hey, fight me," or even run over and interpose himself.

Brad

 

[Rakin]

Because there's no real Rollplaying in wow?

Also it takes a computer to GM WoW, I wonder if 4E comes with a cyborg implant.

 

[AllisterH]

I'd think some sort of intercept capability would work and not be too painful. Like, if the ogre starts swinging at Stabby McStabstab, Clanky McClankClank can politely suggest "hey, fight me," or even run over and interpose himself.

Brad

Which is part of the reason why I loved Bo9S. Without the use of the "challenge/taunt" mechanic (which I do find somewhat weird for a non-divine character), crusaders can interpose and protect their more squishy friend.

Crusaders can actually act like bodyguards and I'm hoping that suite of manoeuvers gets brought over to 4E.

 

[Rechan]

WoW is a threat-based game without collision detection. Its central gameplay revolves around manipulating threat. The person with the most threat gets attacked. It's a simple concept, but one that leads to pretty deep gameplay. That's why a Taunt mechanic is essential in WoW.

In contrast, D&D is a position-based game with collision detection. A monster attacks the fighter instead of the wizard because the fighter is between the monster and the wizard. Positioning in combat is or should be the central gameplay element of D&D, and a Taunt seems to be out-of-character with that.

Given that 4e is all about "movement" and moving around and such, the monsters may very well be able to get past the fighter to smush the wizard.

 

[Rechan]

In general I think the "Calling out" challenge by the knight makes sense. It seems a lot like the big guy in the battle pointing at the enemy's leader and essentially going "You and me, let's duke it out, mono-e-mono".

That really works against primitive creatures where the Chief is the baddest mofo around and he must prove his dominance against the enemy's leader. It makes less sense for tactical, militant groups ("Why would I fight you when I have all these guys to back me up?").

But it is very cinematic and a classic fantasy trope.

 

[outsider]

In contrast, D&D is a position-based game with collision detection. A monster attacks the fighter instead of the wizard because the fighter is between the monster and the wizard. Positioning in combat is or should be the central gameplay element of D&D, and a Taunt seems to be out-of-character with that.

The problem is, a fighter is only 5 feet wide. Unless you're in a 5 foot wide hallway, you can't actually block a monster from getting past you. You can probably slow them down a bit and hit with an attack of opportunity, but you can't actually stop them. Eating an attack of opportunity from a fighter is almost always a far better choice(unless that fighter is going to use the aoo to trip you) than letting the wizard do whatever he's going to do. Not to mention that if a fighter wants to keep putting himself in a blocking position every round, he typically has to give up his full attacks to do it.

Interestingly, the Knight -also- had abilities of the "positioning in combat" style. If I'm remembering correctly, knights got an ability that made it so their entire threatened area was considered difficult terrain(ie half movement). Most people choose to ignore that though and focus on the taunting.

Taunting I could actually take or leave. Personally, I think if they are going to use it, they need to flavor it more appropriately. They need to do -something- though to actually enable defenders to do their job. If that winds up being a system where they force monsters to attack them, it's an improvement over what we've typically gotten over the last few editions. If it's a system that makes it so monsters -can- attack the casters and such but it's penalized enough that it's not a particularly viable option, that's even better. If it's a system where a defender can sufficiently impede a monster's movement(without a ridiculously complex build utilizing a weapon that probably about 50% of dms are tempted to kick you from the group outright if you even think about using), that's FANTASTIC.

 

[Rakin]

In all seriousness. If the system is going to be wow on paper, why not just go play wow. There's no way that (the way wotc offers it up anyway) tabletoping is any cheaper than 15 bucks a month now, anyway. Also with wow you get a computer to run your game for you, as well as professionals pumping out the material. On top of all of that, there's millions of people on wow at the sime time, day or night, so looking for a group to game with involves almost nothing versus trying and finding a group to meet up in real life every week.

Also there's no preperation in wow as well as no dealing with paper, pencils, or keeping track of your own character.

The only thing left tabletop can offer you that wow can not is Roleplaying as well as offering up creative ways to handle encounters and an ever changing world.

But I don't see anyone here or anywhere arguing over how those 3 things will be effected by 4E, just game mechanics.

 

[Grog]

If the system is going to be wow on paper,

I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text.

 

[Rakin]

So in all things released about 4e, what about it are people excited about that you can't find in a good MMO like WoW?