|
So, in rules discussions about class to class power balance, one of the greatest criticisms of the poor Fighter is his inability to do his "job". Bypassing debate over what this job really is, one of his greatest reasons for being in a party is to absorb the damage from foes to protect the "softer" spellcasting characters, but whenever this would be brought up in the fighter's support it is pointed out that he has no official rules way of doing this.
Under 3.5 rules, barring the DM roleplaying the monsters as attacking the fighter over the other party members, the enemy is just as likely (moreso, if they're "smart") to simply walk past the fullplate-encrusted fighter types and punch the wizard. As long as they can handle a few attacks of oppurtunity, there are no penalties or restrictions in place to make the fighter a more effective meatshield.
One of the solutions is to take some of the "tanking" mechanics from MMORPGS and implement them as Fighter bonus feats or class features, i.e. a Taunt that forces foes to attack the fighter or an ability that prevents foes struck by an AoO from moving past him. The Knight (PHB2) was an official trial of this, and was from reports I've heard fairly well recieved. 4E, from my (very) limited experience, has also gone somewhat along this route. So a general question here on what PFRPG players would like to see from Fighters and other defensively-minded classes; what do you think about MMO-style Taunts being incorporated into D&D? Does it cross the line into severe "gameism"? Has anyone played extensively with the Knight or other systems like this, and how were they recieved in your games? If you don't think this sort of system should be implemented in PFRPG, do you have any other ideas on how meatshields can serve their role better? Do you even think that the defensive classes are fine as they are? Discussion away!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I really really would hate to see this kind of crutch introduced into the game. I mean, pretty soon we'd have fighters stopping to attack their opponents after getting their aggro lead to avoid parry haste - all their aggro comes from special maneuvers anyway. ;)
Seriously? Maybe a plain old AoO is not always up to the job to make the fighter a worthwhile "bulwark". I agree to that. The reason to me would be to up the fighters damage potential, rather than some arbitrary "but you can't do that!!!"
|
|
I really really would hate to see this kind of crutch introduced into the game. I mean, pretty soon we'd have fighters stopping to attack their opponents after getting their aggro lead to avoid parry haste - all their aggro comes from special maneuvers anyway. ;)
Seriously? Maybe a plain old AoO is not always up to the job to make the fighter a worthwhile "bulwark". I agree to that. The reason to me would be to up the fighters damage potential, rather than some arbitrary "but you can't do that!!!"
Excellent. A worthwhile and informed response. I must admit I am also against this sort of thing being put into D&D, but there aren't many more appealing alternatives. Just making the Fighter more powerful won't cut it. Probably the best way so far is to use move-impairing effects and reactive abilities (beyond simple AoOs) as the Knight, but that still has "Knight's Challenge" to force the enemy's assault, which implies that the playtesters didn't think the other class abilities good enough as a stand-alone measure. I've been creating an alternative fighter to playtest with my home group just to see what options can be given without invalidating the 3.5 fighter job of "that class you get levels in to qualify for PrCs", and I'm trying to see what options there are for a defensive fighter that actually involve tactics rather than a 4E-like "maneuver" that arbitrarily forces the foe to do stupid things.
How do you think upping the damage potential of Fighters could be implemented so that it didn't just make "offensive" fighters more powerful at the same time? A damage bonus on AoOs? Perhaps a chance to halt a foe's movement if it deals enough damage? How do we make sword-and-board fighters as appealing as spiked-chain fighters if reach and AoOs are the major defensive measures? Just some general questions.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I must admit i do not have a perfect solution for this. Making fighter(ish) classes more powerful with a selection of new abilities would be my favored approach. The "damage dealing" fighter is fine until at least level 14, IMHO. So these would need to be relatively limited in scope, and/or focus on the movement-impairing aspect.
I'd first approach this by new feats. These do not make any rewrites necessary. In addition, feats have the nice precedent of being class-locked (weapon specialization, ...). they wouldn't be that easily folded into each and every other class.
Just off the top of my head:
- A feat that allows you an iterative attack of opportunity once per turn could make the "run past the front lines" a lot more costly - needs to be tuned carefully, though
- A feat to increase the tumble DC (usually "can't fail" for any rogue-like class pretty soon) with the fighter's base attack bonus
- Feat to "intercept" a moving enemy with an extra 5' step. Usable only if it results in the fighter being adjacent to the enemy. This in effect increases the reach of the "sword 'n board" fighter for his job, but does little for the spiked chain wielder.
- Weapon Specialization for 1-Handed weapons might be made more effective than for two-handed, or offer additional critical strike chances
- Slash prices for magical shields. Makes that extra AC more appealing over "dead enemies don't make attack rolls"
From my experience of 3rd Edition (I started at the very end of 2nd and the very beginning of third) the Fighter has NEVER been a Defensive-Class, so the job of ‘stand around and get hit for someone else’ is not their job (Sword and Fist, did provide the Devoted Defender, who‘s role and abilities IS though).
The Fighter (and the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin) are all Offensive, they are meant to fight and kill, not make things attack them for no good reason other than a meta-game concept. Ironically a bit of the need for is because a bit metagaming from the DM’s point-of-view.
For example: If I can at you with a scythe and proved that I could hit you (potentially kill in a blow) could you say, with all honesty, that you would turn away from me to attack someone else?
Most creatures aren’t suicidal enough to run off to deal with another problem if the first one is still there up-close-and-personal, a stupid/low wisdom/mindless creatures wont give second thought to attacking whatever’s attacking them relentlessly.
Perhaps you should ask the DM to remember that monsters (however comical it sounds) are people too and aren’t anymore likely than you and I, to do something that would put their lives in immanent danger (more than it already is at least).
Though have you tried masking your defenses? You know like using an alter effect to make you ‘look’ more exposed to danger to draw in the attacks, like making it look like your wearing…a bathrobe! Or Mr. Roger’s sweater.
There are always better in-game reasons for a monster to keep attacking you than there is need of metagame reasons.
Your mileage may vary…or something like that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I think the situation is a little more tactical than that. Consider the following scenario:
There is a scrawny weakling twenty feet in front of you. He's got a magic gun that can kill you dead. He's not looking your way right now, but will surely do so soon. There's also this annoying tough guy right next to you. It'll take a long time getting rid of him. He's got boxing gloves on, and probably would pummel you unconscious in 20 shots.
Who are you going to go after?
|
Perhaps you should ask the DM to remember that monsters (however comical it sounds) are people too and aren’t anymore likely than you and I, to do something that would put their lives in immanent danger (more than it already is at least).
And there is the answer. Very well put. I'll not let any beast ignore the fighters and the spellcaster has to be an obvious threat for an NPC to risk getting carved up to head directly at them.
Mind you, in my games the monsters generally try to escape once badly wounded and the NPCs try to surrender.
I'd agree that the game mechanics are fine as they are. Mages are supposed to be vulnerable to direct attack, but few opponents would willingly turn their back on the big guy with the pointy sword.
I do think that it should perhaps be harder to get spells off while stones and arrows are bouncing off you though - it would make having a couple of ranged attackers cover the enemy mages with readied actions more powerful.
If the mage can't protect themselves, then they can always ask that the party bunch up with them in the middle. To those who would say that this is suicide in a game with area-effect spells, musket men had the same choice of line or square to make depending on whether they faced cannon or cavalry.
|
* A feat to increase the tumble DC (usually "can't fail" for any rogue-like class pretty soon) with the fighter's base attack bonus.
This is already the case (see Beta, Acrobatics skill, page 55).
The Tumbling section also states that a check is made for each opponent, with the traditional +2 per extra opponent per round. It doesn't say anything about checking for each 5' square, increasing the DC per extra square, or costing double movement, though there is a modifier hidden in the right-hand column that raises the DC by 5, for all checks except Jump, if moving at full speed.
Could these be clarified? I think it should be explicitly stated if Tumbling 5' costs 10' of movement, if a check should be made per square, and if extra subsequent squares add to the DC.
Also, that once free and clear, the tumbler can go back to normal movement rate. I know some DMs who apply movement penalties to a character's whole round, rather than the portion of the round they are hampered (see also Warhammer).
I notice there are other changes in the Acrobatics skill, which may catch some people out. No more avoiding being flat-footed on a tightrope if you have 5 ranks...ouch.
|
|
I think the situation is a little more tactical than that. Consider the following scenario:
There is a scrawny weakling twenty feet in front of you. He's got a magic gun that can kill you dead. He's not looking your way right now, but will surely do so soon. There's also this annoying tough guy right next to you. It'll take a long time getting rid of him. He's got boxing gloves on, and probably would pummel you unconscious in 20 shots.
Who are you going to go after?
Tactical to us as players.
To the poor sod in the situation: The guy with the magic gun can kill you dead, but you can make it harder for him by keeping his companion between you and him. You want to try and kill him before he gets a chance, but the guy next to you is sticking a sharpened bit of metal into your flesh, the pain is excruciating, the blood is starting to slicken the hilt of your own sword and you feel light-headed. Are you really going to offer your back as a target? Better to hope that one of your companions is watching out for you with a large rock in hand to throw at the scrawny weakling if he starts to twirl his fingers.
I think the situation is a little more tactical than that. Consider the following scenario:
There is a scrawny weakling twenty feet in front of you. He's got a magic gun that can kill you dead. He's not looking your way right now, but will surely do so soon. There's also this annoying tough guy right next to you. It'll take a long time getting rid of him. He's got boxing gloves on, and probably would pummel you unconscious in 20 shots.
Who are you going to go after?
Depends:
If am a mindless Iron Golem- “…” Keeps swinging.If am a standard Ogre (CE, Base States)- “me stupid. me take on 4 on 1. Hogg help, he beat other things. his problem.” Doesn’t notice that he’s the last one standing and that he’s in deep doo doo anyways.
If am a more me (LE, Hobgoblin, Elite Array)- “Tough bastard wont die! The guy with the Golden Gun is looking for more targets which means that the guy that supposed to kill him is dead or unconscious, which means we’re outnumbered and I need to either order a withdrawal or kill him quick…If I chose option 1, they may hunt us down and we lose any advantage we have currently…I chose option two…I’ll look real stupid if I turn around and get my head slammed into the dirt and the battle WILL be lost! And there is no guarantee that I’ll get him before being surrounded and beaten down anyways!” Decisions, Decisions.
If am a Pit Fiend or other Powerful Entity- Teleports to attack the Golden Gun Holder first. Disarm him (anti-magic field). Kill him (he’s got no defense now!). Ponders whether I should strike a bargain with them for their lives….failing that exterminate them all at leisure. Should a surprise or three force the odds against me, flee to fight another day…After all, I have eternity to plan the best way to kill them, their families, their pets and their futures. What’s a short time to me.”
Though I got to wonder why the guys wearing boxing gloves instead of a brass knuckle.
|
|
Perhaps you should ask the DM to remember that monsters (however comical it sounds) are people too and aren’t anymore likely than you and I, to do something that would put their lives in immanent danger (more than it already is at least).
And there is the answer. Very well put. I'll not let any beast ignore the fighters and the spellcaster has to be an obvious threat for an NPC to risk getting carved up to head directly at them.
Well, that's fine and dandy for the monsters/NPCs that you run, but how are you going to force the PCs to abide by this?
Unless you're going to enforce this across the board, and forbid the use of Acrobatics, Mobility, Dimension Door, etc, the players are going to attempt to get past the NPC melee-types, without even incurring AoO. And even if they don't have these abilities, they will often choose to go for it anyway, and trust their Armour Class to hold up.
Are you going to tell your players that they're not allowed to run past a knock-knee'd trembling guard, to cure a friend, or interrupt the opening of the gates of Hell, when their PC has over 100hp, and they risk taking d8+6? How about 2d6+12? How about 4d6+30?
I know a lot of players who would take that sort of risk, to make a heroic effort.
Where's the cut-off point?
At what point do you take over control of their character, and turn it into an NPC?
If the answer is 'Never!', then fine, but you have to accept that you're running the PCs and NPCs under different rules, which favour the players, just as surely as if you'd hobbled all the enemies with Dimensional Anchor Ball-n-Chains, that make them shuffle pathetically round the map, one square at a time, while the PCs prance around and above them in their Winged Boots of Hasted Ethereal Flying, laughing at their inability to keep up, so the PCs really can't brag about their exploits too loudly.
A 50% xp penalty for the PCs should suffice to balance this, no?
Or how about 75-90%, if the enemies should have been particularly mobile?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
This is already the case (see Beta, Acrobatics skill, page 55).
The Tumbling section also states that a check is made for each opponent, with the traditional +2 per extra opponent per round. It doesn't say anything about checking for each 5' square, increasing the DC per extra square, or costing double movement, though there is a modifier hidden in the right-hand column that raises the DC by 5, for all checks except Jump, if moving at full speed.
Ooops, i must have missed that part - or at least, not put it to heart enough. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
|
|
Perhaps you should ask the DM to remember that monsters (however comical it sounds) are people too and aren’t anymore likely than you and I, to do something that would put their lives in immanent danger (more than it already is at least).And there is the answer. Very well put. I'll not let any beast ignore the fighters and the spellcaster has to be an obvious threat for an NPC to risk getting carved up to head directly at them.Unless you're going to enforce this across the board, and forbid the use of Acrobatics, Mobility, Dimension Door, etc, the players are going to attempt to get past the NPC melee-types, without even incurring AoO. And even if they don't have these abilities, they will often choose to go for it anyway, and trust their Armour Class to hold up.
Are you going to tell your players that they're not allowed to run past a knock-knee'd trembling guard, to cure a friend, or interrupt the opening of the gates of Hell, when their PC has over 100hp, and they risk taking d8+6? How about 2d6+12? How about 4d6+30?
I know a lot of players who would take that sort of risk, to make a heroic effort.
Where's the cut-off point?
Good points.
'heroic' is one of the key points there. The PC's are heroic, they are the sort of people who can turn their back, knowing that it will get a sword stuck in it, to achieve a more important goal.
That said, I do severely penalise players who rationalise their actions in game mechanics terms e.g. just jump into the spiked pit 'cos it can't cause more damage than you have hit points etc...
Someone who disarmed the guard or who punched him in the face with their shield (sneak-attack head-butt) to get a chance to disengage without getting wounded and run to barricade the gates of hell would get a small bucket of XPs on the other hand.
I'm quite lucky that my style of DM-ing matches up quite well with the players that I have. I do prefer the more gritty style to a game that VP/WP gives (wrt risking getting stabbed, could always crit straight to WPs), although that always feels tacked onto DnD when used. I'm looking forward to reading FantasyCraft when it comes out because the SpyCraft stuff for modern adventures is superb.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
To the poor sod in the situation: The guy with the magic gun can kill you dead, but you can make it harder for him by keeping his companion between you and him. You want to try and kill him before he gets a chance, but the guy next to you is sticking a sharpened bit of metal into your flesh, the pain is excruciating, the blood is starting to slicken the hilt of your own sword and you feel light-headed. Are you really going to offer your back as a target? Better to hope that one of your companions is watching out for you with a large rock in hand to throw at the scrawny weakling if he starts to twirl his fingers.
First off, HP do not necessarily represent how much flesh the enemy carves through to kill you. They also represent a lot of "near misses", singed thumbs-ups and so on. So you may opt for a more risky maneuver (which in effect costs you some of your "Lucky miss" or "just a flesh wound" HP) in favor of the obvious. I do not claim to be much of a martial artist - but one thing i am currently trying to learn is to dodge towards the opponent. Your first impulse is to get away - but that just keeps him in the offense.
Same thing here. It is certainly "easy" and natural to stick with the closest bad guy. Experienced combatants might know that it's not necessary the best thing to do, though.
|
|
To the poor sod in the situation: The guy with the magic gun can kill you dead, but you can make it harder for him by keeping his companion between you and him. You want to try and kill him before he gets a chance, but the guy next to you is sticking a sharpened bit of metal into your flesh, the pain is excruciating, the blood is starting to slicken the hilt of your own sword and you feel light-headed. Are you really going to offer your back as a target? Better to hope that one of your companions is watching out for you with a large rock in hand to throw at the scrawny weakling if he starts to twirl his fingers.
First off, HP do not necessarily represent how much flesh the enemy carves through to kill you. They also represent a lot of "near misses", singed thumbs-ups and so on. So you may opt for a more risky maneuver (which in effect costs you some of your "Lucky miss" HP) in favor of the obvious. I do not claim to be much of a martial artist - but one thing i am currently trying to learn is to dodge towards the opponent. Your first impulse is to get away - but that just keeps him in the offense.
Same thing here. It is certainly "easy" and natural to stick with the closest bad guy. Experienced combatants might know that it's not necessary the best thing to do, though.
I'd interpreted the wording to mean that the victim was a low-level grunt, therefore probably taking actual painful damage.
Agreed about the dodging; I'm at the stage of dodging forwards into kicks :( ow
I'd certainly give PCs and important intelligent NPCs more leeway.
|
|
To allow Fighters (or other melee combatants) to defend successfully while providing logical explanation, they would need:
- ability to interrupt hostile actions (like charges, moving forward, attacks),
- ability to punish opponents who ignore them,
- ability to improve defensive qualities of their allies.The interrupts should work as immediate actions and grant the following:
- limited move actions (to block charges, to interpose defender between opponent and protected party)
- attacks of opportunity which result in negative conditions applied to opponents (tripped, dazed, stunned, deafened, shaken etc)Punish opponents who ignore fighters:
- attacks of opportunity which result in negative conditions applied to opponents (tripped, dazed, stunned, deafened, shaken etc)Improve defensive qualities:
- share damage between defender and protected party,
- improve armor class by parrying attacks directed at nearby ally.It's doable but it still requires implementation of new mechanics.
Regards,
Ruemere
This is a nice breakdown of the exact points where the Fighter could be adjusted. The 'apply conditions' thing through specific blows is a long-time favorite of mine, and it's easy to see how it could be used to prevent foes from doing an end-run around the Fighter (blow to cripple a leg or lame (per the caltrop condition) a target, slash to blind / dazzle a target (which will halve movement), attack to trip a target, strike to stun / daze a target (which will at least prevent one round of movement), etc.).
There are a lot of pretty cool ways to do this that don't involve an actual Taunt, *and* there's no reason that a specific Bluff or Intimidate use couldn't *also* function, quite literally, as a 'taunt,' with the Fighter learning to 'talk smack' during a fight and cause some foes to have to make checks against his Bluff / Intimidate or focus purely on him. It would be language-dependent, obviously, and not at all like the taunt auras or taunting blows of online games, but the concept of using Bluff or Intimidate in combat to trick a foe into attacking is hardly a terrible idea.
After all, long before online games had 'taunts,' there was the Taunt spell in AD&D, and those darn Kender. Taking it back to it's roots makes, and making it a skill use and not a semi-supernatural class ability, makes it a heck of a lot more palatable to me. (I also don't like the idea of the Fighter in D&D being turned into the 'tank' of an online game. They are different playstyles, and the balance of combat is a lot different in online games, with healers spending every single combat round healing hundreds and thousands of points of damage, and 'wizards' casters spending every single combat round dishing out hundreds and thousands of points of damage. The formula for MMO success has never applied to an AD&D adventuring party, and the entire *point* of aggro and taunt and 'hate transfer' is to compensate for the fact that the enemies are run by an AI / machine, and not being run by a game-master. D&D doesn't have this limitation, and so an aggro-mechanic isn't needed.)
|
|
Are you going to tell your players that they're not allowed to run past a knock-knee'd trembling guard, to cure a friend, or interrupt the opening of the gates of Hell, when their PC has over 100hp, and they risk taking d8+6? How about 2d6+12? How about 4d6+30?
I know a lot of players who would take that sort of risk, to make a heroic effort.
Where's the cut-off point?
Good points.
'heroic' is one of the key points there. The PC's are heroic, they are the sort of people who can turn their back, knowing that it will get a sword stuck in it, to achieve a more important goal.
That said, I do severely penalise players who rationalise their actions in game mechanics terms e.g. just jump into the spiked pit 'cos it can't cause more damage than you have hit points etc
Thanks for taking that post as the serious point it was meant.
I had a horrible feeling after I hit 'submit' that you'd think I was being a sarcastic dick.
Actually, if you look at the history of warfare, the major strategic goals have often been to figure out ways to ignore the infantry and to attack the soft bits behind (HQ, supply lines, artillery, archers, populace). And, yes, armies would punch through infantry lines and ignore the hordes of men with sharp pointy sticks and focus on achieving goals that can lead to a rout. They were trained to do so.
It's not bad role playing at all for smart PCs or NPCs to learn from the basics of military history and to try to apply them to small arms combat.
And half the missions in modules set in wars consist of "stop the war by attacking the leaders." Why shouldn't they apply that lesson to combat.
Finally, in my 3.5 party right now, my job as a melee person is to block off an area and wait until the archers and mages and the cleric take care of our foes. If I could threaten spaces while doing total defense, that would be the optimal strategy, because my 1d8+4 is not going to win the day. The warmage's 5 fireballs and stinking clouds will.
Depends:
If am a mindless Iron Golem- “…” Keeps swinging.If am a standard Ogre (CE, Base States)- “me stupid. me take on 4 on 1. Hogg help, he beat other things. his problem.” Doesn’t notice that he’s the last one standing and that he’s in deep doo doo anyways.
And it does the player's ego no good to know that only idiots regard his character as a primary threat, let me tell you.
|
|
Personally, I really dislike taunt mechanics. I see them having little value comparatively, when so many of a party's enemies may be immune to mental influence or just smart enough/have the strength-of-will not to fall for it.
On the flip side, I do like mechanics that allow the fighter to do more protecting. PrC Devoted Defender, mentioned earlier, is my favorite example of these.
I might propose a feat to add more damage to AoO's vs. targets moving through your threatened area, something like:
Guardian's Reflexes
Prerequisite: BAB +4
Benefit: Add +4 to the damage dealt by a single melee attack of opportunity against a creature moving through the character's threatened area.
Special: A fighter may select this as a bonus fighter feat.
Guardian's Fervor
Prerequisite: Guardian's Reflexes
Benefit: Any enemy affected by the extra damage from Guardian's Reflexes is also Dazed until the end of its turn.
|
|
I'm a bit wary of fixing this with feats, since I see feats as being for special maneuvers, that require taking special training.
This issue seems to be about the inability of all combatants to carry out basic actions, such as a reactive sidestep.
The 5' step is useful, but doesn't cover much ground, nor can it be used if the character has already moved any distance.
A delayed action is useful, but is incapable of interrupting an enemy action, so rather than being an actual 'bodyguard', you are a 'retaliator' against an action already carried out. Not much use if your ward is dead.
The readied action is very useful, but the triggering event must be declared, and this means that many DMs can (and will) take a pedantic interpretation of this stance, leading to the character standing there like an idiot, while events happen all around him, which he is forced to ignore, as they are not the specific trigger.
This can force the players to pick very vague triggers, which get used against them, as the DM deliberately moves the enemies so as to force them to hack at a minion, rather than the leader they intended.
It can also lead to Player-vs-DM metagame arguments, since the players usually declare what they are readied against, while the DM generally doesn't. This leads to accusations of DM cheating, using hindsight to change the NPC's action to 'not the PC's trigger'*, or retroactively choose the NPC's trigger to be 'whatever the PC does'.
Therefore, maybe the 'ready' and 'delay' actions could be re-defined, so as to allow a broader interpretation of triggers? And the ability to ignore an unworthy foe tempting a trigger, without losing one's readied status?
*This came to a head in one of our games, when a PC specifically readied against a wizard in base contact, to 'disrupt spell-casting', whereupon the NPC pulled out a wand, and blasted him. This action could not be interrupted, as it was 'spell-triggering'.
<cue one disrupted session>
|
|
Therefore, maybe the 'ready' and 'delay' actions could be re-defined, so as to allow a broader interpretation of triggers? And the ability to ignore an unworthy foe tempting a trigger, without losing one's readied status?
We quickly abandoned that rule completely. If someone wants to delay their action, they just delay their action, and then jump in whenever they want to, but are then stuck at the lower initiative for the rest of the combat (unless they refocus).
If you want to keep the 'declare your trigger in advance' rule, and particularly in a convention or game-store setting where you and the GM may not be buddies, you can just try to float an option where the delayer writes down his 'trigger' on a note card and flips it over and leaves it face-down on the edge of the combat map. When the triggering event occurs, the delayer (who could be the player or the GM), flips over the card and say, 'A-ha, I was waiting for that!'
|
|
This can force the players to pick very vague triggers, which get used against them, as the DM deliberately moves the enemies so as to force them to hack at a minion, rather than the leader they intended.
It can also lead to Player-vs-DM metagame arguments, since the players usually declare what they are readied against, while the DM generally doesn't. This leads to accusations of DM cheating, using hindsight to change the NPC's action to 'not the PC's trigger'*, or retroactively choose the NPC's trigger to be 'whatever the PC does'.
Is any DM that would do this worth playing with? That's pretty bad metagaming on their part.
From other threads above:
I like the idea of a fighter being able to make a check (CMB?) to increase the AC of an adjacent character. Perhaps a higher DC check to divert the attack from the intended target onto themselves?
|
|
Is any DM that would do this worth playing with? That's pretty bad metagaming on their part.
True. I don't play with that DM now. He was a good DM in many ways, but his interpretation of some rules would depend which side of the screen he was currently on. He'd swear blind that his PCs could do things that, as a DM, he would veto.
But I am more concerned about the time wasted by players accusing a DM of such nonsense, when he may be innocent.
If the default 'readied' stance was able to interrupt more actions of a general nature, it would put everyone on an even footing, help the melee types get in the way of those attackers, and prevent players from feeling they were being hosed.
One of my players in my Age of Worms campaign has the Backstab feat (Dragon 340), which causes flanked opponents not attacking her to provoke attacks of opportunity with each attack they make. With her Combat Reflexes and high Dexterity, this can really punish an opponent that ignores her in melee.
|
|
It's up to the players to make decisions of who they attack, and a taunt mechanic that is skill-based rather than feat-based or class ability based is a bad idea...
NPCs should be played by the DM, exactly as the poster above noted.
Fighters can always hold an action waiting for someone to rush the wizard and either trip or plain attack them...not wait on an AoO...
I have used wait actions for my NPCs quite extensively, makes for interesting combats.
|
|
I would personally like to see a Taunt combat action similar to the Feint one, where success causes the opponent to have to focus on you the next round or few rounds.
It doesn't seem to be in the SRD, but I believe that the 3e PHB mentions a use of Bluff to 'trick' someone into doing something, which could be used as a basis for this sort of thing. I wouldn't mind for it to be achievable both through Bluff or through Intimidate.
|
|
I am not really surprised to see the general rejection of straight-out taunts, and some of the ideas given in this thread are very good. It would obviously be much less of an issue for fighters if they were default damage dealers in a party, but mostly the "big guy standing in front of you with a scythe" is actually standing 20 ft away in the middle of a corridor, with his lightly armored friends behind him, and 10ft of corridor to either side. Granted an ogre or the like will just charge in, but a weaker, more cautious foe such as a kobold rogue or the like is more likely to just run or tumble past the slow-moving fighter and maul his allies, until they get off a flamestrike or something, leaving the fighter feeling to blame for a wounded wizard and pretty useless to boot.
Obviously this is a worse case scenario but it stands that in the "core party" of fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, the fighter's advantage is his large tally of hitpoints, which he (supposedly) uses to shield his more fragile allies from attack. I have simultaeneously created two different types of "defensive" fighter, one relying on attacks of oppurtunity and movement restriction effects (spiked chain trip fighter) and one with a Bluff-based taunt mechanic and the ability to draw a foe's attention by hammering on him, with higher levels allowing him to punish enemies whenever they miss his (hopefully high) AC and lay waste to ranged attackers threatening his allies (sword-and board shield bash fighter). I'm hoping to work out which one works better through upcoming playtests, but to make them effective their general damage-dealing capabilities have been increased, which isn't so bad, as they accomplish higher damage by defending their allies. In this case, the fighter who charges in with a scythe and demands his foe's attention would be the second type, while the guy who tries to ready actions and provide a "shield wall" would be the first type.
P.S. Of course, any mechanic which forces targets to attack should be used sparingly against PC's to maintain fun, just as you would carefully consider before using creatures with charm or dominate effects.