ITT we talk about how to fix 3.5/PF melees to have proper aggro control.
I know 3.5 has a ToB band aid that makes it undesirable for people to not attack the initiator, but PF doesn't have that (to the best of my knowledge) and we need a true MMO style tank button that melees can press to say "Not only will you attack me, but you also have no other choice"
>>47997173
Aggro mechanics should not be a thing. No. Just no. Learn some actual tactics instead of trying to inject a bunch more abstract gamey bullshit into a system that's almost crushed under abstract gamey bullshit as it is.
Have you heard of reach weapons, perchance?
>>47997201
This. It's not a fucking video game.
>>47997173
I'm pretty sure the OP was scientifically designed to be a fag for this thread
A thread died for this
>>47997215
Not only that - but players with some experience will understand a few things like... it's always better to not get hit than to get hit. If you go in planning to get hit, you've already fucked yourself. While there's a time and place for wearing the heaviest armor possible and weighing yourself down to the point of having practically no mobility, most of the time this is a bad idea, because being able to control where and when a fight happens is far far more valuable than +8 AC. Now, if you absolutely must defend a small limited area for some reason, and can be assured of a melee vs melee matchup without a reach disadvantage, then by all means have fun. Just don't come whining to us when you drown in your fullplate or get turned into a pincushion because you can't run and didn't bring a bow, or the dragon incinerates you because your loud clanky ass woke him up for no reason.
>>47997173
Is is chest plate in pathfinder that makes an enemy most likely to attack you. Ask the DM if he could make simple not retarded OP stuff that is similar or the same. That's the only way to really do it. I did that with my paladin and it worked rather well
>>47997365
Naw man you just tank wrong. You need more armor and with a side of more armor. Be a paladin and become truly indestructible.
>>47997173
>we need a true MMO style tank button that melees can press to say "Not only will you attack me, but you also have no other choice"
Also known as the "Kill me right now because I don't want to live anymore" button... have you tried just going into the dungeon unarmed and naked without any light source?
>>4799721
>>47997347
>>47997280
Why you all hating? This is a discussion thread. If you are unable to do that then leave. We want to find the best way to do this and want to discuss with others how they might work it out.
>>47997514
Armor is a solution to one problem but it has disadvantages in other areas. It's situational just like everything else.
>>47997530
Moron. What kinda tank has no armor and shield? The whole point of the tank is to protect high dmg characters like wizzards and rogue's.
>>47997572
But the whole idea behind it is that we are using it to solve that one solution. Let the wizzard Solve the rest.
>>47997586
So the paladin just stays at home for all the adventures that don't require set-piece combat in an enclosed space? Ooookay.
>>47997555
Thank you. I know that the /tg/tard's instinct is to ravenously tow the party line, but please at a minimum explain why you this this is bad rather than saying vague things like "don't add abstract systems on".
I should mention that this isn't for me, since I am forever DM, but rather for my players.
That said I will contribute my observations. Intimidate or Bluff seem like somewhat decent vehicles for drawing aggro, but the problem is that it doesn't work on certain enemies, such as those immune to fear effects ( for intimidate) or mindless enemies ( for bluff)
>>47997752
In the ToB area, White Raven combined with Devoted Spirit gave you unparalleled battlefield control. Iron Guard Glare is a particularly delicious stance.
>>47997752
It's bad because (1) it's a blatant gimmick that doesn't make any practical sense as to how it would work, (2) it's inferior both on paper and in thematics to using tactics that do make real-world sense, (3) it's another push toward overspecializing martials which already overspecialize far too much as it is and end up gimping themselves, (4) nobody in-setting would ever actually want to do this because getting wounded is bad for you, (5) it conceptually opposes the martial damage-dealing that is supposed to put enemies out of the fight and thus prevent them from damaging anyone, (6) it has a terrible feel to it because it comed from games that we don't like.
Are six reasons enough for you?
>>47997916
You know full well that they wont be enough no matter what you say.
>>47997730
No, the wizard solves any problem that doesn't require absorbing hits without being hurt. Which wizards can actually do too, but muh spotlight sharing.
>>47997752
>Torian !!BgSAPhGzI9z
Filtered. :^)
>All of those goblins and orcs that attack the wizard first, because he's the dangerous one.
>Even though he looks like some old dumbass in a robe.
>Completely ignores the full plate fighter that's up in their face.
>This makes perfect sense?
>>47997916
Your readons are shit. it makes simple since. You kill it while I stop you from dieing
It makes fine since on paper and works well in practice. And in the real world men wore full plate and used shields all the damn time. In more modern war the Fucking tank will draw a lot of attention and take a lot of hits while ground units kill off hte enemy.
Its called mechanics.
I enjoy being the tank. And getting wounded means shit to a paladin with a cleric in the party.
It adds to the idea of combat. I take the hits while barbarian kills it.
That's 100% your own opinion and I and most people disagree with you.
>>47997998
Okay. Stealth mission, level 5. The rogue has Stealth training, nobody else does. How many spell slots does the wizard burn on Invisibility for everyone else to prevent a TPK and how many does he use for every other problem that he supposedly has to solve by himself with his spell slots that he may or may not even have an appropriate spell for or even be able to see coming?
>>47998026
>That nerd in the robes just stopped time and now he's flying
>Hey guys I think he might be one of those wizards we should probably focus on him.
Plus, once you reach a certain CR, it's not a stretch assuming most sapient monsters could recognize a wizard or cleric
>>47998061
Why the fuck is a diverse party going on a stealth mission? That's dumb.
A raid of high level orcs is charging you in melee combat. The mage got one shot the rogue looks fucked. What do you do.
>>47998055
How much healing can the cleric keep pouring on before exhaustion? Why would the enemies not attack the cleric instead? Why not the barbarian? What if you have to ford a river or cross a desert in order to even get to the fight? I get that you are having fun right now in your limited, relatively safe little box where nothing is a real challenge for you and all the opponents play by ninja-B-movie rules, but you shouldn't expect that to be typical of D&D in any way shape or form.
>>47997201
I think breaking it into mechanics or putting numbers to it is stupid, but the idea that some threats are more obvious or seem more pertinent in the moment--or that a character can try to demand that sort of attention--is a valid one.
Ultimately it's a RP interaction mid-combat. Want to get the attention of a wolf? Be taller, louder, postured more aggressively. Want to get the attention of an archer? Figure out what makes you a prime target, do that.
But having a discrete 'generates more aggro' sort of system is shite for the same reason ignoring the combat priorities of NPCs, opponents, and monsters is shite. It's limiting the game, limiting the setting, and limiting the players.
>>47998119
Who said anything about stopping time or flying?
Who said anything about having even cast spells?
Who said anything about higher CR, when only first level cannon fodder was mentioned?
Come up with an actual fucking answer.
>>47998133
>A raid of high level orcs is charging you in melee combat. The mage got one shot the rogue looks fucked. What do you do.
Probably either GTFO or attempt to surrender. We clearly made a very serious mistake somewhere along the line, and it's time to cut our losses and try for whatever compromise outcome we can pull out of our ass.
>>47998135
Thats why we need agro control scrub. And there is an armor set that can do just that
>>47998055
Why isn't the cleric or the barbarian "tanking". Barring early level shaningans both are better equipped for taking damage than a paladin.
>>47998191
How are either at low level better for it? And I never said they couldn't BE the tank.
Barbarian doesn't have DR till later. Cleric is basically a paladin.
>>47998180
How would aggro control even help if you've been ambushed and most likely pinned in and surrounded? And if you weren't ambushed, why are we even in this situation?
>>47998180
Also, why wasn't the rogue doing his job and scouting ahead to find the enemy? Why didn't the mage have a fireball or web ready for them? Why aren't we the ones with a surprise round? You can really blame anyone in the party and it'd be just as accurate.
>>47998240
The paladin with lay on hands who can take more and avoid most damage gets he ambush to attack him. The wizzard barbarian and rogue kill off the ambushers while the paladin keeps himself up dealing as much damage as he can with his one hander and shield.
>>47998300
>The paladin with lay on hands who can take more and avoid most damage gets he ambush to attack him
But WHY would he be the prime target of a surprise attack if he's the hardest target? Why don't the orcs run in, knock the squishies down, and retreat so the paladin will chase after them and run into the punji sticks? Why do you assume that no enemy you will ever face has above animal intelligence?
>>47998352
That'd why we are discussing agro control....... that's the entire point of the thread.....
If we didn't see it coming then I sure hope our tank can grab all that aggression.
If the tank can't tank then a tank don't work. Much like a caster cant cast then he don't work.
>>47998352
Why would the paladin give chase? He would stay on the party's dead bodies and try to save them
>>47998135
>but you shouldn't expect that to be typical of D&D in any way shape or form.
This I think is the crux of the issue.
D&D is not build around "aggro mechanics" becasue aggro mechancis don't work in anything which isn't a video game. At most--at fucking most--certain classes could potentially have an ability which convinces an opponent to attack them for X number of rounds. But even that could lose out to a good Will save.
D&D, especially 3.PF, is not built around tactics which rely on hitting one of 10 keys on the number bar.
Forcing MMO tactics like aggro makes as much sense as forcing spells per day into WoW.
>>47997173
It's called the Knight.
>>47998475
>I'm closed minded and don't wana think of an answer
Why you in this thread? And it is possible I have experience at doing it it works fine and all I had was a chest plate of insults. Maby if you stopped being a bitch you could open your mind to more then one game of of only 3.5 limited imagination edition.
>>47998440
Like i just said a few posts above... if he's ambushed, he'll have no chance to use any aggro-drawing mechanics, and if he's not ambushed, he shouldn't be pressing the fight against a stronger opponent. Giving him aggro draw would do nothing.
>>47998462
Okay.... for how long? Until he runs out of food and water and collapses from exhaustion? Will he just stand there and repeatedly heal them only to watch them det plonked by arrows and rocks out of the darkness again and again? What about the damage that he'll be taking himself, since anything can still hit on a nat. 20? Will he try to drag them out of the dungeon, and how can he do this safely?
I'm not a harsh DM, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't last very long in anything I ran unless you were willing to wise up and expand your box of available options outside of merely the things your character has listed as bonuses on his sheet or took feats for.
>>47998572
Your pushing this to the point of ROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES. if everyone literally died in turn one then fuck nigger there is no turn two to discuss. That's like saying wizzards are the weakest class at lvl 20+ cuz if they die before they can cast a spell then they can't cast a spell.
>>47998572
I wouldn't wana play in campaign with you as DM. "I disagree with you opinion" rocks fall everyone dies. Like fuck you you shit DM.
>>47998617
But the situation I was presented with actually said that we start out with one character dropped and another one badly hurt. I didn't write that.
Oh boy, it's good to see OP is looking for innovative ways to make a faggot game even worse.
Okay, so after reviewing this thread, a lot of the sentiment seems to be that players only want to bring one hammer in their toolbox so they can whine when they get handed the occasional screw instead of the expected nail. Hrrr. I don't think I want to DM for you any more than you want me to be your DM. Go have your fun your way and I'll have my fun my way.
>>47997201
>Aggro mechanics should not be a thing. No. Just no. Learn some actual tactics instead of trying to inject a bunch more abstract gamey bullshit into a system
One billion times this.
>>47998754
Then come up with your own system, asshole. Your idea is awful, and you know it.
>>47998695
The reason it started like that was a like of agro control. In the situation I presented it wasn't am ambush or was a very bad ambush. It was a simple orcs charging
>>47998754
I honestly can't find a reason the "for" side in this thread is giving other than "I want MMO tanking because I liked tanking in WoW" or a very flimsy "well in IRL tactics prioritizing the most visibly intimidating target makes sense".
But the latter doesn't work since D&D parties focus caster and healer enemies all the time. If aggro works on monsters it should work on PCs as well
>>47998137
I thank you for giving a reasoned answer.
To answer everyone who's bringing up why monsters wouldn't ignore wizards in favor of a heavily armored individual, let me put it plainly.
Of the two choices stated above, one is doing large amounts of damage and or disrupting the battlefield (as the examples keep suggesting) versus a heavily armored individual who might do a fraction of said damage. The one that is doing more damage is going to draw more ire from the enemies, it's simple logic.
>>47997173
>let's make this terrible system more like a MMORPG
This is the best thread.
>>47998781
>In the situation I presented it wasn't am ambush or was a very bad ambush. It was a simple orcs charging
Charging out of where? In what terrain? How many rounds did the party know about them and have time to prepare? Lack of context is making this situation meaningless.
>>47998775
The salt is strong with this one!
>>47998137
>Ultimately it's a RP interaction mid-combat. Want to get the attention of a wolf? Be taller, louder, postured more aggressively. Want to get the attention of an archer? Figure out what makes you a prime target, do that.
And this was the stab of my comment about using bluff or intimidate, which I have yet to hear a response to.
>>47997365
>>47997514
Both of you tank wrong. It's not about taking less damage, it's about being able to take more. AC increases your survivability less than DR and HP.
>>47998874
>And this was the stab of my comment about using bluff or intimidate, which I have yet to hear a response to.
I wouldn't have any issue with that if it took a standard action like any other during-initiative use of those skills, wasn't an automatic success, and had some other limitations.
There are a lot of niggers in this thread going on about how they don't like the topic of discussion in this thread and how they don't want to make the topic work.
WHY ARE YOU IN YHE THREAD?
Really if you don't like the topic and don't wana discuss it then leave. How about you go to a fresh porn thread and tell them how sick that shit is? Or go in a character art thread and tell them they are dumb and spam memes. Really niggas just get out of the thread you won't be missed.
>>47997173
I think the armor works, but that guy talking about using intimidate and diplomacy is my personal fav way to draw agro.
Sometimes is just a simple one nigga on the weakest party member and you could take more.
>>47998803
I'll use the example that seems to be bandied about. In the example of an ambush where everyone is caught unawares, it would be nice to have an option to (ideally using the current mechanics) have one person draw the attention of all of the enemies while everyone else gets their shit together.
As an example from the session I ran last night, the players ran into a few enemies that did high single-target damage. One of the players (a swashbucker), had a high AC and CMD (for their level). He wanted to be the focus, so he got right up in the enemies' faces and went to town with his sword. He did a good chunk of damage. Then the half giant took her turn and absolutely pulped the other enemy with her mace. At this point, despite all the intent of the swashbuckler, the half giant became the much bigger threat. As a result, she nearly died, and would have if not for a once-per-day ability to reroll a save.
The half giant was not power gamed and the team was using sound tactics, but because of two lucky crits, the half giant killed an on CR enemy in one turn. In cases where massive damage occurs (especially with quadratic casters) it would be nice to have some recourse to keep focus on the person you want it on.
I have no doubt that some would say things like "don't get into melee then" or "play a different character", but the entire point of my existence as a DM is to make sure that my players have fun. If they all want to be melee people, who am I to tell them no?
>>47999042
A huge part of discussion threads is accepting not everyone will like your ideas. And those people will explain themselves. Ideas do not get immunity just because the OP doesn't want criticism
Don't come to 4chan if you wanna feel validated. Write a blog and delete any comments you don't like if you just want positive feedback
>>47999042
you need to be told what a faggot you are
if cancer isn't actively opposed, it festers in shitty threads like this
>>47999042
If you aren't able to handle people who think that your ideas are bad, why are you on 4chan? If you want to talk about whatever stupid thing you can think up with people who will never criticize you or tell you that your idea is bad, go to Facebook or something.
Aggro is a shit mechanic in TTRPGs because it's a mechanic designed for video game number crunching. It's just as bad as if you suggested that the players be able to "save," do something, and then "reload" if they didn't like the result.
>>47999101
No nigger you misunderstood . You see there is a difference between discussion and bitching. Y'all is just bitching. Your entire reason and only reason for your opinion is "i don't like it"
It's not about positive or negative comments it's about pointless ones. Go to /B/ and post bananas
>>47999149
>>47999166
It's Bout you all just shitposting. Your the cancer. Look at what we are discussing. Not agro. We are discussing you leaving and your bitching about but hurts.
>>47999101
>>47999149
>>47999166
First off that's not me, in case you notice I have a ## in my name. Second off, I don't care about people disagreeing. Disagreeing people tend to give reasons why they don't like something, which furthers discussion. Trolls on the other hand, tend to just spout hate without any real reason given other than their own biases.
I started this thread in the hopes that someone else had thought the same thing I did and had already found something (such as the armor people mentioned). In the absence of such, I was hoping for some intelligent discussion with people who have high system mastery.
>>47999191
Damn OP. Put those niggas in place.
Back on topic, I was thinking of tweaking either bluff or intimidate slightly to allow for influencing enemies to see you as a larger threat, possibly setting DCs along the same lines as the Diplomacy DCs to increase opinion.
>>47999235
That would work best with using skills.
>>47999088
Again, what it sounds like is you want to handhold players through situational encounters which are difficult by virtue of mechanics. Retroactively applying MMzo style aggro to 3.PF in the way you seem to want trivializes combat to little more than tank and spank. This works in vidya because vidya is designed around that. Pathfinder is not. It relegated everyone to neat little roles and makes combat repetitive and boring.
If you really, really must have aggro as a hardwired part of the game I'd suggest a different system which is less complex.
Id suggest Savage Worlds. It has a fantasy supplement designed entirely around D&D style games. And you can make up your own spells so giving that ability is a lot easier
4e did it right with its Marking system. Making the marked enemy make a decision between a couple of bad choices, either attacking the defender or getting walloped by said defender. But no, that was "Babby WoW shite."
to be honest it would make sense as an ability for paladins. a kind of magical challenge that says "you and me knave, single combat, now."
>>47999191
Congratulations, you made a thread on 4chan and got a result you didn't anticipate. I guess this is your first day or something. See the rules here are that if you post stupid bullshit, you get made fun of and people discuss whatever they want, provided that it's board related. You posted some video game bullshit that is pretty much antithetical to the fucking purpose of roleplaying. Now we get to tell you that it's fucking stupid, and you get to do absolutely nothing about it. If you want "intelligent discussion," then you should pull your head out of your ass and talk to the people replying to your thread with their ideas and opinions in earnest. If you want people to tell you nothing except that which you want to hear, either talk to a mirror or >>47999188 this monkey.
Have a nice day.
You could have a % based agro system with intimidate/diplomacy adding to the % you have and at 100% you have full agro. So rolling an 8 plus 4char means you start turn one with 12% agro. You could even make them roll % based will save on it.
You could work damage into it so the agro has control mechanics to it.
itt: op can't handle criticism of his shitty idea and goes full monkey on everyone
>>47999361
>I guess it's your first day or something
Well he IS tripping. For some reason
>>47999364
Ye that's good idea. Adds a nice smooth lvl to combat
>>47999405
Don't forget the other guy crying about how orcs running up to to pummel the mage and then running away again is a Rocks Fall Everyone Dies unwinnable situation,
>>47999405
Nah, OP is just acting smug and going on about "muh intelligent conversations"
But he's developed some kind of echo chamber in this thread who just shout down everyone disagreeing and call them all shitposters. Something about "just come up with an answer other than 'I don't like it' lol". While providing no real justification for aggro beyond "well I like it".
OP at least provided a reason for wanting aggro (>>47999088), though I still hold it's incredibly flimsy and handhold-y.
I'd like more of an RP element to it. Based on shit talking. That's what my party seems to do. If the DM feels our shit talk is good or funny it usually works. Saved our rogue once doing it. Bandit was hiding and shot him. Was probably gana go for another that would have at least knocked him out so I called him a piss drinker. And threw my sword at him. Wasn't my smartest move but it worked. I got agro while our ranger shot him down
>Aggro mechanics
How about just making the Martials Dangerous enough to not be ignored.
I mean really, just fix the fucking grappling and tripping mechanics and we can have mighty warriors smashing the wings of the dragon and wrestling them to the ground, engaging with them tooth and claw to bide time for their wizard.
>>47999553
any suggestions on how to do that?
>>47999345
This is pretty much what OP wants. Why not take the 5e version of marking targets and port it back to 3.5/PF?
>>47999520
This is honestly my preferred method of "aggro". A hardwired mechanic is just so...boring.
I'd rather play a rogue and see the enemy bee line me for snarking at him than sit and watch Sir Orderios de NoFun press the 9 button on his keyboard and activate his taunt.
>>47999583
Easiest way is to simply remove the limits on Sizes.
Strength score is strength score.
If a Halfling is strength 20, he's fucking strength 20, maybe he's some genetic quirk, maybe reality merely decided to play a joke on itself.
But when that charging Ogre tries to crush him, that strength 20 halfling knock him the fuck down and gets him in the camel clutch and makes him humble.
>>47999405
>>47999506
There's a difference between constructive criticism and hate posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_criticism
I welcome the former. The latter are unhelpful.
To the people against aggro mechanics,
How do you deal with squishy wizards? If there is a smart and strong enemy the wizard could potentially die in one shot. And with the way turns work, I can't see any way to stop someone from just attacking the wizards.
>>47999608
do you have a link to that? I am very interested in that.
>>47999633
This best part is this should totally be in the purview of anyone who's an adventurer. Regardless of race.
Merry and Pippin each killed a troll during the battle at the Black Gate.
>>47997482
>>47997514
>>47997576
>>47997752
>>47998557
>>47998891
>>47999364
>>47999611
All this should be the good post. I treid to find the most useful ones. Glad to see your all of boring the trolls. Keep the good stuff coming.
>>47999663
Merry and Pippin were undisputedly awesome.
>>47999663
Exactly.
I actually do run what I like to call "Unbound" grapple push and pull mechanics.
There are penalties or harder rolls when something is larger, but it's like any other test.
I consider it a success because my players Dwarven Barbarian German Suplexed a Bullete to get it out of the ground.
>>47998557
I found something similar to the Knight's Challenge in the PF Cavalier. It's single target though. Anyone know of a way to extend it to more than one target?
>>47999640
By standing in their way? Moving past you is going to let you get a few hits in, hell if you're really desperate you could try tackling the guy. Literally, think how you'd stop a crazed rapist from making a bee-line to your wife, then do that. That's how "tanking" works outside of a video game
>>47999634
>I welcome the former. The latter are unhelpful
>actually linking the "Constructive Criticism" wikipedia page
Jesus OP could you be any more fucking arrogant?
I'm gonna give you some "constructive criticism" right here: don't bitch about "hate posts" on 4chan. Especially since most of what you're calling hate in this thread is just people criticizing your idea in a way which isn't to your taste.
If you want your narrow definition of "intellectual discussion" you're in the wrong place. You're complaining there are too many ducks at the duck pond.
Personally, I still maintain your idea is a bad one. Mostly because you started off this thread with "3.PF *needs* MMO-style aggro mechanics". Which it really doesn't for a variety of reasons presented here, the most important being they were never a major design consideration and the game's overall mechanics do not accommodate it in any workable way. At least no where near where you want it. And so far your only real reason for why the game needs it is a situational context where a player who should usually avoid getting hit wound up getting hit. Which again, that's part of the game's mechanics.
>>47999741
Order of the Shield looks pretty sweet.
>>47998817
>it's simple logic.
If you ever left your basement you'd know people don't work like that, particularly in stressful situations.
So if you use magic weapons with souls inside them could you have a weapon draw agro for you? And make a tank based on what he hits or wants to fighting using gear?
Maby if you have tanking based on people attacking the biggest and most threatening looking guy? (Barbarian or full plate fighter) and make that how NPCs think. Maby make wizzards not be known as THE threat in your realm.
>>47999784
>Personally, I still maintain your idea is a bad one. Mostly because you started off this thread with "3.PF *needs* MMO-style aggro mechanics". Which it really doesn't for a variety of reasons presented here, the most important being they were never a major design consideration and the game's overall mechanics do not accommodate it in any workable way. At least no where near where you want it. And so far your only real reason for why the game needs it is a situational context where a player who should usually avoid getting hit wound up getting hit. Which again, that's part of the game's mechanics.
thank you for your reasoned response. While I admit that it is a fringe case, and more than 90% of the time it won't come up, I would still like to explore this for two reasons.The first is that one of my players would like to try pulling focus as his main purpose in combat, and therefore I would like to know what his/my options are (if any). The second is that in that fringe case I would like to know if there are options when my players ask "can I do ____". Well, those kind of blend together, but I hope you get what I'm saying. If there is not mechanical way for this to happen, and making one would require a rewrite of the entire system, then I guess that's my answer.
Can the cunt posting books cut that out? I have to put your post under hidden Everytime.
I click the arrow next to your post number and click hide post.
>>48000010
That just makes NPCs sound retarded, though.
Casters in 3.PF are enormously dangerous individuals; unless they only came into existence within the last 10 years, everyone and their mother would know to beware the be-robed ones.
It's the same problem with having "magic is easy to make and super potent" alongside "NPC organizations have nearly no protections against magic of their own."
I think my best bet short of investing money into Armor of Insults (which honestly is fluffed to be quite silly), would be a reversal of the "Feign Harmlessness" special use of Bluff to Feign Dangerousness (or some other word).
>>48000019
Just hand that guy that special piece of armor that other dude was talking about. Make a quest about it. I'm sure he'd be delighted to if that's what he wants.
As far as players asking "can I do X" then just use the roleplay justification. If they can describe what they want to do and how they want to do it in a compelling, interesting, and articulate way, then you should reward them at your discretion.
>making one would require a rewrite of the entire system
That is the best solution based on what you seem to want.
Rewriting the rules is a fool's errand and I still maintain you'd be happier with a generic system you can homebrew to your heart's content.
>thank you for your reasoned response.
You still sound insufferable.
>>48000058
You ever fight a lvl one wizzard? He won't live. most wizzards will be lvl 1 and will make the name wizzard known as people who cast silly jokes or use tricks/drugs to confuse people when given time. Wizzards in combat wouldn't be thought of as a threat.
>>47997173
As a DM, I handle front-line stickiness by having the NPCs act in character. Depending on who they are and how the party presents themselves, "geek the mage" is an option. If the squishy PCs make themselves look like big threats or easy pickings (or worse, both), they put themselves in danger. I'm never unclear about it, saying things like "well, since you just wasted four of them and Jeff is clearly a solid pile of indestructability, these guys over here all shoot at the Wizard..."
>>48000048
Shit dude wish I thought of that. I'll make all those navels hidden and irrelevant. Thanks
>>48000019
You could easily make a heavily armored brawler whose gimmick is insulting the enemy. I'm sure that if your options were some nerd with a stick or the motherfucker slinging insults, you'd probably look to beat up the motherfucker first. Of course it wouldn't work on things that don't speak your language, but if you're looking to take it into full
>I use Mocking Blow, generating 27 aggro, you're safe to throw a magic missile, Raistlin
Then you should seriously just go play an MMO.
>>48000146
I just hope that the tank is wise enough to realize that for much of the time taunting the enemy might be a waste of a turn that he could have used to just end him rightly with a pommel strike instead.
>>47997173
For those nerds who like this. In pathfinder there is a 300ish gold or less bracelet that can change how your armor looks. So you can be in full plate but look like your in skimpy leather. So if you wana make yourself look " weak" then do that and try to diplomacy/intimidate them into hurting you. There blows will hit steal but look like they are bouncing off skin. I'm sure you could work that into a tanking mechanic.
The equivalent to tanking for TTRPGs, as many have said, is body blocking, grappling, and disengagement rules.
No one in the history of anything has decided to fight the big guy in armor with a shield before the unarmed guy with a dagger if they have the choice.
>>48000288
Hey that bracelets I mentioned would work with that idea!!!!!
>>48000096
>wizzard
>>48000306
or we can stop desperately grasping at straws and start using AoOs and maneuvers and a bunch of other proven stuff
>>48000350
A low lvl wizzard couldn't make a realm of piss. Best he can do is make a single piss puddle. Unless he made a potion of pissing/water.
>>48000096
>most wizzards will be lvl 1
And most uranium is perfectly harmless powder sitting in the earth's crust.
People don't form opinions based on what's most common, they form opinions based on what's most bombastic.
One wizard wiping a continent off the map will affect cultural perception far more than even a billion wizards who can't cast anything other than Daze.
>>48000356
But when you try get into a fight with a group of staying bandits your grapple won't save you.
>>48000382
What setting do you have with half the map gone? I've played a lot of campaigns and only with with a wizzard made crater. People will know what they have seen and will have seen some scrub casting wind/blowing really hard or tree leaves are now purple for one hour!!! Any not retarded wizzard won't want to make wizzards know as a threat to the world.
>>47997201
Magic should not be a thing. No. Just no. Learn some actual swordplay instead of trying to inject a bunch more abstract fantasy bullshit into a system that's almost crushed under abstract fantasy bullshit as it is.
Have you heard of artifacts, perchance?
Healing mechanics should not be a thing. No. Just no. Learn some actual first aid instead of trying to inject a bunch more abstract resourcy bullshit into a system that's almost crushed under abstract resourcy bullshit as it is.
Have you heard of a hospital, perchance?
Swords should not be a thing. No. Just no. Learn some actual magic instead of trying to inject a bunch more abstract combat bullshit into a system that's almost crushed under abstract combat bullshit as it is.
Have you heard of mordenkainen's sword, perchance?
>>48000449
First of all, they're fucking called wizards. One z.
Second, that guy gave a hyperbolic example but it makes a lot of sense people will get ancy around magic. Thousands, if not millions, of people have been killed throughout human history because someone thought they were using dark magic. I feel the motivations for those actions would only amplify in a world where people using weird, hard to understand magic are commonplace and frequently cause trouble.
Most common layfolk are gonna be a little miffed when Hogwarts sets up a satellite campus in their hometown.
>>48000482
Unesasary burn!!! But for real yo don't feed da trolls. Even if you are right.
>>47997555
>>47997752
Just explain to me how creatures controlled by a human being, rather than an AI, are expected to hold "Aggro", a concept created for video game AI to simulate said human by targeting the currently most effective player.
Also, why are you tripfagging for no reason?
>>48000535
Honest question, do you think that you are on Facebook?
>>48000449
>What setting do you have with half the map gone?
Let's start with 2 of the most popular D&D settings of all time: Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. Both have been subject to multiple catastrophic events at the hands of casters that were more or less public knowledge.
>>48000509
"I made his setting and it can not change. There is no other setting only my setting. All other setting are fake. Let's burn the space future zombie and non magical setting books because they are not my setting"
Nigger I'm providing a different setting. Not your setting a different one. As in one that one be the exact fucking same. Idk why your setting has wizzards. Wizzards arnt real in the real world setting.
>>48000576
Then guess what nigger. That setting won't have this idea.
>>48000589
Check it nigger
>>48000482
These are shitty counter examples because magic, healing magic, and sword fighting are not abstracts in D&D. They have tangible justifications.
Aggro as OP wants--MMO-style aggro--is nothing more than mind-controlling enemies to fight you. If you're playing a class which has that kind of ability there's no issue. But why would a Fighter or a Paladin just *have* an ability which forces an enemy to fight them?
There are so many better ways of articulating it, to the point where even calling it "aggro" is idiotic.
>>48000589
>>48000614
Sorry guys, I just made a setting where you're wrong and retarded, I guess you both lose
:^)
>>48000614
Congratulations, then, you've just made casters MORE powerful, because them being unknown means there's going to be far fewer defenses against them in general.
>>47997173
Don't make it about 'Tanks or Aggro'
For as much flak as 4e gets for being the 'MMO' edition, it actually did this way better. Rather than having a simple taunt to force enemies to attack you, they instead had a catch 22.
You gave the enemy a penalty to hit anyone else, which already made you a more appealing target. It basically put the rest of the party up to your defenses. Then, if they still decided to hit the party member, you got to take a swing at them, or force them to take further penalties or damage. Most of the time, you actually wanted the monster to attack someone else, because you could prevent them from doing anything and punch them in the gut for their troubles.
Just being a wall of hitpoints that the enemy has to attack is the most MMO form of Tanking there is, and yet that's what 3.5 players seem to always jump to.
>>48000637
Paladins can cast spell........ and clerics can make good tanks. And maby we are not looking for spells maby skill checkz.
The problem with having dedicated tanks in 3e/Pathfinder is that you're missing the healing part of the trinity, and 3e healers just don't shit out enough healing to function like their MMO counterparts. Likewise, most 3e "tanks" lack any means of damage mitigation.
The closest we got was 4e's style, where tanking was mostly setting up shitty situations for your opponent to bait them into attacking you, and healers were more about battlefield control while providing quick emergency heals that didn't eat through their action economy, both things 3e inherently lacks.
I don't think it could be incorporated in any satisfying way without reworking the system from the ground up.
Those shit posters are really good at derailing a thread. I forgot I was on /tg/ thought this was /B/
>>48000672
There is no "skill" for getting enemies to prioritize you in the thick of combat. The only way that works is if you're some kind of Beowulf poetic figure who's so articulate or imposing enemies are just drawn to you. And that just borders on magic.
IIRC, clerics do have a "Command" spell which I guess a player can service into a sort of taunt. But I also believe it has a fairly low Will Save DC, so it's not always gonna work.
Which is how it should be.
>>48000737
I use diplomacy. "Ok what do you say?"
Hey nigger! I fucked your mum! "Now roll for it. Oh wow a 17 plus your char of 7 you said it so well he thinks you fucked his mum"
It's not that hard.
>>48000637
I was honestly hoping there was such a class.
>>48000786
"F-father? Is that really you? You look so different..."
>>48000876
Paladin can cast command also like cleric. So that would work as aggro controller rather well.
having read the recent posts, some good points are raised against 100% guaranteed "you will attack me". That said, what are the best ways to go for the "make it really attractive to hit me". Inserting my own bias, I really loved playing that type of thing using White Raven and Devoted Spirit. Is there a PF equivalent?
Also some guy mentioned a 5E "mark" thing. Can someone explain that to me? Or maybe provide a link?
>>47998061
Stealth Mission Lvl5 Solution:
Rogue leads far-point for the party, checking for enemies, traps and pathing hazards for the remainder of the party. If the environment prevents success of the 'Stealth' side of the mission, party does what party does. If the Rogue fails the 'Stealth' side of the mission, party does what party does.
wtf are you expecting a diverse party to do when their goal is 'grab macguffin at bottom of the dungeon', they're going to kill and slaughter their way down.
>>48000916
That actually made me laugh. GG
So is most of the anger about agro that its using the word agro a MMO term. Is that why we got all the shit posters in here? Get over it you dumb cunts.
>>48000876
>>48000927
From the SRD entry on the Command spell:
>You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options.
>Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
>Drop: On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding. It can't pick up any dropped item until its next turn.
>Fall: On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone for 1 round. It may act normally while prone but takes any appropriate penalties.
>Flee: On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as possible for 1 round. It may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
>Halt: The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless.
>If the subject can't carry out your command on its next turn, the spell automatically fails.
>>48000982
Just make it approach you any time you want agro then shit talk and smack the bitch. Bam agro done for that guy
>>48001010
It also has a pretty low DC for its Will saves, and Spell Resistance applies.
After a certain CR, it's not gonna work that well.
>People who want outright MMO mechanics made for AI in their TTRPGs.
>People who don't realize the AoO system was 3.PF's way of allowing melee characters to "tank"
As a DM, if you want the style to be more effective, improve attacks of opportunity, they could use it anyway.
As a player, build your character in a way that forces the opponent to focus on you or be punished.
And remember, unlike video games you actually want to avoid being hit whenever possible. This is why battlefield control style casters are so effective.
>>48001124
After a certain CR you will have plus lvl and more charisma and maybe a spell buff. Scrub
>>48000482
These are bad counter examples but they also point to the flawed, memetic flow of logic from OP.
I smell a c/p getting born.
>>48001157
Lvl 10 that's pls +2 Chr to let's say 18 chr. nd plus 10 diplomacy plus your basic plus 3 for class skill bounous and +2 for a trait makeing you bass diplomacy of 19 plus the roll Nd magic buffs.
>>48001211
How did my spelling get that bad. Im going to blame my auto correct.
>>47997173
One of the ideas I messed around with in 3.5ish homebrew/thought experiment was having successful AoOs always halt the action that they interrupted -- if you provoke while moving, you don't actually exit that square; if you provoke while standing up, you stay on the ground, and so on. This was combined with making the 5' shift a move action instead of a freebee. In essence, this makes melee entanglements a lot more consequential. If you disarm or trip an enemy, or clog up a choke point with a reach weapon, your enemy has a lot more to worry about than a slap on the wrist if they want to go hit your backline.
Obviously, this adversely affects melee PCs as well. As a countermeasure, the Acrobatics skill and Mobility feat tree got a renovation aimed at fighters and rogues specifically, and the fighter, barb, and knight (read: replacement paladin) got their own little tricks to get around this business/further lock down enemies.
It isn't straight aggro control, because that shit is way too game-ey and doesn't interact with tactics and positioning at all. But if they fighter is in melee with you, you can no longer just take a step back and do whatever full round action you feel like.
>>47997201
>>47998137
>Want to get the attention of a wolf? Be taller, louder, postured more aggressively. Want to get the attention of an archer? Figure out what makes you a prime target, do that.
7/5 star posts Anons.
>>48001124
If you don't get better with the CR your not liking correctly.
>>47997173
>PF doesn't have that
Path of War & Path of War Expanded?
They're good books, put out by DSP. They've got better QA than the official Paizo stuff (any playtesting is better than no playtesting).
If you go to /pfg/ the default assumption is that all of the DSP content is allowed, and for good reason.
someone who isnt lazy should hide all the shit post and screen cap all the useful shit in this thread and post it. that would be lovely please and thank you.
>>47997173
Path of War and its Warder exist and they are far better at tanking than anything else in the system, third party or not.
Also, aggro exists as a result of MMO shortcomings, not because it's an interesting mechanic. WoW itself hasn't given a single fuck about it in years and the supposedly 'MMO' edition of D&D used a mechanic where you were punished for attacking anyone other than the defender if they marked you, not hard aggro.
>>47997201
The problem with that is that 3.PF's mechanics don't map to real life at all. The best response to a big guy with a sword and shield is to ignore him because he won't do anything appreciable to you while the guy in the bathrobe will.
>>48004027
The answer is indeed to use PoW for your most mundane characters, and some manner of caster or half-caster for the rest.
I mean, you *COULD* thoroughly rewrite the system so you can functionally FORCE them to pay attention to you (reach weapon + combat reflexes is the only option right now).
But short of that. You're going to be giving your warriors a magic power to help them tank.
If that's the approach you're going to take, PoW does that already.
>>47999166
>It's just as bad as if you suggested that the players be able to "save," do something, and then "reload" if they didn't like the result.
Someone actually came up with a way to do that in 3.5. Best edition. It involves a psicrystal and a barrel of quintessence.
>>48004284
Surely we will never see another game as brilliantly designed and flawless as 3.5.It saddens me that I actually have to clarify that this is sarcasm.
If you want capable martial characters who can defend their allies, just play 4e.
This is not a facetious post - 4e works quite well as long as you don't mind using a grid (which is necessary in 3e and most of 5e as well), and gets a weird amount of hate for just making it so martial characters now have more mechanical tricks, and spellcasters are no longer immortal god-kings.
>>48003850
That's a good idea. But who would read all this shit to filter out the books of shitpost?
>>48000670
What's the catch?
>>48005419
The catch is for the enemy.
The enemy has to choose between "hit the guy that it's pointless for me to try to hit" and "try to hit a weaker person, but take damage in return".
The point is that this also makes combat interesting for the GM. Assuming the encounter has been 'built correctly', the GM can safely 'play to win' and create a satisfying fight.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/antagonize
Problem solved. We can end this awful thread now.
