If I build a defender type in this version of the game other that casting a confusion spell on target and then have Defender attack them there is no way to tie up opponent to attack one defender. Should this be ability or feat that ect that is in the game. There is no Goad or marking ability in this version of the game?
Am I wrong???
If so what is it?
The antagonize feat in Ultimate Magic does something like that, but nobody(very few people) is a big fan of it. If you do a search the thread on it should come up.
PF works more on classes, as opposed to roles so you will have to do things differently if you are coming from 4E.
If I build a defender type in this version of the game other that casting a confusion spell on target and then have Defender attack them there is no way to tie up opponent to attack one defender. Should this be ability or feat that ect that is in the game. There is no Goad or marking ability in this version of the game?
Am I wrong???
If so what is it?
Boasting Taunt? It's Barbarian-specific, and only works while raging, but still....
you can always curse someone to get a penalty when not attacking a specific creature while in combat. A lenient GM might even allow severer penalties, if they can be avoided like this.
Other ways would be a sphere around monster+tank, a monster would normally prefer attacking the defender before it would try to destroy the barrier. However it might be hard to reach the monster from the outside, without it being able to reach out.
There is no simple "taunt" like in many mmo's, that is because all options for PC's are open to ennemies, and players don't respond well to someone leading their actions too much. (in my experience, I should add)
If I build a defender type in this version of the game other that casting a confusion spell on target and then have Defender attack them there is no way to tie up opponent to attack one defender. Should this be ability or feat that ect that is in the game. There is no Goad or marking ability in this version of the game?
Am I wrong???
If so what is it?
As WS pointed out, there is the abomination known as the Antagoonize feat in UM.
My answer to the question posed in yout title thread is no, no a thousand times no. Aggro-type mechanics are necessary in a computer game because there is no GM capable of deciding what the NPCs would realistically do. They are completely unnecessary in a pen and paper table top game with a real live thinking GM. And, of course, lots of folks object to any mechanic like this that could take control of their character's actions away from them.
Unless, of course, your goal is to try and recreate your MMORPG experience within PF. I don't really see the point of that, since, well, you could just play your MMORPG instead. But, if that's fun for you, rock on.
The antagonize feat in Ultimate Magic does something like that, but nobody(very few people) is a big fan of it. If you do a search the thread on it should come up.
PF works more on classes, as opposed to roles so you will have to do things differently if you are coming from 4E.
Antagonize work for one round forsure if you use Intadate or 10 rounds some what if Dipomacy.... I think I like it. Make Fighter with Intadate /dipolmancy usefull...
All version on the game from 1ED, 2nd ed, 3.0 3.5, pathfinder to 4th ed to any other roll play game the charter all fall in to some type of roll. I hate 4th ed ,50 bucks spent and 20 gaming hour spent on it never go back... but there is alot nice concepts in it. And would never go back to 1 ed or 2nd 2ed after playing 3, 3.5 or pathfinder 3.75.
The antagonize feat in Ultimate Magic does something like that, but nobody(very few people) is a big fan of it. If you do a search the thread on it should come up.
PF works more on classes, as opposed to roles so you will have to do things differently if you are coming from 4E.
Antagonize work for one round forsure if you use Intadate or 10 rounds some what if Dipomacy.... I think I like it. Make Fighter with Intadate /dipolmancy usefull...
All version on the game from 1ED, 2nd ed, 3.0 3.5, pathfinder to 4th ed to any other roll play game the charter all fall in to some type of roll. I hate 4th ed ,50 bucks spent and 20 gaming hour spent on it never go back... but there is alot nice concepts in it. And would never go back to 1 ed or 2nd 2ed after playing 3, 3.5 or pathfinder 3.75.
Just check with your dm before you use antagonize, there are a lot who would be unhappy with the way it works. If someone tried to spring that one on me, they would get a solid dose of 'rocks fall, you die'
We play 1 of 3 rule set
Set 1 all 3.0 -3.5- 3.75 all source any thing goes with GM approval
Set 2 all 3.0 3.5-3.75 WoTC and Pathfinder only with GM approval
Set 3 3.75 pathfinder only with GM approval
With only wrinkel is PET classes/Sidekick feat, Depend on table size if greater than 6 no PET/ Sidekick. Cause we can end up with as many 10 folks at table 9 PC and 1 GM. Druid/Summoner/Conger troop type caster is only aloud to fast player not slow ones.
Righ now I looking at leadership for my Earth Genie Sor in legacy of fire adventure path cause we will only core group of 5 with 2 floating folks (about there 25% of the time) and we have not pet class as of right now.
|
...that is because all options for PC's are open to ennemies...
In all fairness, that's NOT exactly true. People can like/dislike "aggro" mechanics in Pen and Paper games but they're not used because of the "if the PCs can do it, so can the monsters" argument. Like its been said before, the game tries to avoid dictating PCs actions. Hence why PCs can use Diplomacy and Intimidate versus NPCs but don't influence PCs.
Apart from what's been mentioned above, there's no way to force anyone to attack a specific target without using quite powerful magic.
I don't think there should be either. However, I could see something that grants a penalty if another target is attacked.
How would you feel if your PC was forced to attack a specific NPC because of a game mechanic, regardless of what you want your PC to do or think would be appropriate?
Aggro mechanics work (and are needed) in video games because NPC AI tends to be far from intelligent.
Imagine what would happen if video game mobs generated aggro which forced player controlled PCs to switch targets.
This is why such mechanics are a bad idea.
You want to force enemies to attack your "tank"? Then you have to use tactics and terrain to make your tank the only target (or at least the best available target).
I see them need table top as well. Do want to fight that all time no.
But I do not want fight the same way all time. Yeah I made level 5 all I kill was orcs level 1 warrior 450 of them. What fun...The Tactic, Monster, Terrian, Weather, ect should all vary form fight to fight. Same thing get old quick. But I also do not want to spider go pass the dwarf paladin every to attack the elven Wizard. Or rouge be the only one to have charm spell cast on them or the cleric/druid alway bethe atarget of the Fire ball and the totaly miss the Rouge and monk. Monk with Graet Touch AC and Save never being hit by touch spell.
All of us are human and some hold gruges form 2 or 3 campains back and or try to get even.
I am tied of no intellagene have undead and or constuct move around or by pass the fighter types to only hit low AC low HP caster in the back in flank no less.
Or Orc Barbarian that have no rank in Spell Craft and Intelagence of 7 Run by the fighter to cleave in to Wizard and the Bard in back feild.
Cause they can Cast spell.
I want fairness and every one to have fun.
Would I mind if I had fight only monster x sure no problem.
Look at the all the divide and conquer type spell sleep, charm person, color spray, hold person,cause fear, any wall or terrian type Web or entangle all last more than one round. Comand, Suound bust last one round.
I like that tatic as well for the beaters not just the caster.
AFAIK there are some Paladin Spells in the APG that "encourage" the target to attack the Paladin?
Apart from what's been mentioned above, there's no way to force anyone to attack a specific target without using quite powerful magic.
I don't think there should be either. However, I could see something that grants a penalty if another target is attacked.
Look at the all the divide and conquer type spell sleep, charm person, color spray, hold person,cause fear, any wall or terrian type Web or entangle all last more than one round. Comand, Suound bust last one round.
I like that tatic as well for the beaters not just the caster.
Nothing I listed other than than wall spell and hold person is higher than level 1 spell. so can be used rightout the box. All have higher level verison that do the same.
If I build a defender type in this version of the game other that casting a confusion spell on target and then have Defender attack them there is no way to tie up opponent to attack one defender. Should this be ability or feat that ect that is in the game. There is no Goad or marking ability in this version of the game?
Am I wrong???
If so what is it?
As WS pointed out, there is the abomination known as the Antagoonize feat in UM.
My answer to the question posed in yout title thread is no, no a thousand times no. Aggro-type mechanics are necessary in a computer game because there is no GM capable of deciding what the NPCs would realistically do. They are completely unnecessary in a pen and paper table top game with a real live thinking GM. And, of course, lots of folks object to any mechanic like this that could take control of their character's actions away from them.
Unless, of course, your goal is to try and recreate your MMORPG experience within PF. I don't really see the point of that, since, well, you could just play your MMORPG instead. But, if that's fun for you, rock on.
Lets look at it another way.
A wizard can be a battlefield controller. He can physically shape the battlefield or add effects the entice people to make certain decisions. Since we've already established that battlefield control CAN take place, why are you opposed to similar mechanics being open to Fighters? It's really just the same concept, and I agree that some attempts have been made and done poorly (Antagonize feat).
A wizard can specialize in many types of magic, but so far Fighter can really only specialize in dealing damage (he gets to choose between poking, beating or cutting you to death). A Fighter can specialize in defense, but usually the best strategy to beat him is to just ignore him.
Things that give the fighter "control" without removing choice from opponents is to focus on abilities that do the following:
- Increase ally AC/CMD/Saves
- Reduce ally damage taken
- restrict/reduce movement in small areas
The problem with the current abilities that do these things already is that they are pretty minimal. +2 AC, or sharing part of your shield bonus, these are pretty weak. Make it 1/2 your BAB (for a standard action) or your whole BAB (full round action) and all of a sudden a defensive fighter is something that has to be dealt with.
Abilities of this nature should be potent at all levels, so having them scale with the characters is a good idea. If they're potent though, they should also be restricted to standard and full round actions. Make it a tactical choice for the Fighter, is it better to do damage? or prevent it?
If I build a defender type in this version of the game other that casting a confusion spell on target and then have Defender attack them there is no way to tie up opponent to attack one defender. Should this be ability or feat that ect that is in the game. There is no Goad or marking ability in this version of the game?
Am I wrong???
If so what is it?
As WS pointed out, there is the abomination known as the Antagoonize feat in UM.
My answer to the question posed in yout title thread is no, no a thousand times no. Aggro-type mechanics are necessary in a computer game because there is no GM capable of deciding what the NPCs would realistically do. They are completely unnecessary in a pen and paper table top game with a real live thinking GM. And, of course, lots of folks object to any mechanic like this that could take control of their character's actions away from them.
Unless, of course, your goal is to try and recreate your MMORPG experience within PF. I don't really see the point of that, since, well, you could just play your MMORPG instead. But, if that's fun for you, rock on.
Lets look at it another way.
A wizard can be a battlefield controller. He can physically shape the battlefield or add effects the entice people to make certain decisions. Since we've already established that battlefield control CAN take place, why are you opposed to similar mechanics being open to Fighters? It's really just the same concept, and I agree that some attempts have been made and done poorly (Antagonize feat).
A wizard can specialize in many types of magic, but so far Fighter can really only specialize in dealing damage (he gets to choose between poking, beating or cutting you to death). A Fighter can specialize in defense, but usually the best strategy to beat him is to just ignore him.
Things that give the fighter "control" without removing choice from opponents is to focus on abilities that do the following:
-...
I don't really have a problem with your general concept, that martial classes should have some way to control the battlefield as well. I just have a problem with Aggro-type mechanics that replace GM discretion over NPC actions. If a acharacter wants to insult an NPC's mother hoping he'll spaz out and attack in a rage, that's great. But the GM running the encounter should determine if it is successful, based on the personality of the target, the nature of the taunt, etc.
I think a lot of options already exist for controlling a battlefield if you have a good and inventive GM. Attacks of opportunity combined with the right weapons and feats can make battlefield control more effective. More encounters incorporating terrain and obstacles also helps, rather than battles on featureless plains and in empty rooms. And running opponents as real beings that fear pain and death rather than suicidal maniacs intent only on inflicting maximum damage to the party before inevitably dying also helps.
I wouldn't be averse to more options for martial class battlefield control being developed. My aversion is just to aggro-type mechanics.
[As WS pointed out, there is the abomination known as the Antagoonize feat in UM.
My answer to the question posed in yout title thread is no, no a thousand times no. Aggro-type mechanics are necessary in a computer game because there is no GM capable of deciding what the NPCs would realistically do. They are completely unnecessary in a pen and paper table top game with a real live thinking GM. And, of course, lots of folks object to any mechanic like this that could take control of their character's actions away from them.
Is Cause fear and Hold peron and the such not "Aggro-type" Mechanics that bend in the game since a Chain Mail (1971 DnD birth)?
There is a stance in the 3.5e Tome of Battle (Book of Nine Swords) that works like this: targets you threaten take a -4 penalty on attacks against targets other than you, and are aware of this penalty.
That's played out pretty well over the last few years. Monsters can still elect to attack someone other than you, but they're encouraged not to. When coupled with a very high AC target, monsters eventually realize they're wasting their time attacking you, and move on to softer targets.
I 100% agree that the concept of "agro" is for computer games only. In table top games where creatures are supposed to be thinking breathing adversaries any agro, must attack this, mechanic does nothing but shatter verisimilitude. Even in those games where agro is used it is often mocked for the complete idiocy it dissolves a creature into. I'm the EVIL overlord! I will continue to bash my face against this guys shield here while his friends slowly kill me. Behold my awesome intellect!
Moronic
My reason for posting though was to address Brian Bachman..
snip..
I don't really have a problem with your general concept, that martial classes should have some way to control the battlefield as well. ...
I would argue that the martial classes already have such a tool.
BullrushTrip
Disarm
Charge
AoOs
All of these are battlefield control options.
[As WS pointed out, there is the abomination known as the Antagoonize feat in UM.
My answer to the question posed in yout title thread is no, no a thousand times no. Aggro-type mechanics are necessary in a computer game because there is no GM capable of deciding what the NPCs would realistically do. They are completely unnecessary in a pen and paper table top game with a real live thinking GM. And, of course, lots of folks object to any mechanic like this that could take control of their character's actions away from them.
Is Cause fear and Hold peron and the such not "Aggro-type" Mechanics that bend in the game since a Chain Mail (1971 DnD birth)?
You could add any mind-affecting spell to that list, and they have been in the game forever, I agree. However, I see those as different because they are clearly magic, and they offer saving throws and there are ways to counter them. I know some people grumble that fighters should be able to do neat stuff that bends reality, too, and the developers have made some concessions to that before (see swimming in platemail and falling 200' and walking away). I disagree. Magic is different, in my view, and should be. YMMV
I 100% agree that the concept of "agro" is for computer games only. In table top games where creatures are supposed to be thinking breathing adversaries any agro, must attack this, mechanic does nothing but shatter verisimilitude. Even in those games where agro is used it is often mocked for the complete idiocy it dissolves a creature into. I'm the EVIL overlord! I will continue to bash my face against this guys shield here while his friends slowly kill me. Behold my awesome intellect!
Moronic
My reason for posting though was to address Brian Bachman..
snip..
I don't really have a problem with your general concept, that martial classes should have some way to control the battlefield as well. ...I would argue that the martial classes already have such a tool.
Bullrush
Trip
Disarm
Charge
AoOs
All of these are battlefield control options.
Fully agree, as I stated in the very next para of the post you quoted.
Apart from what's been mentioned above, there's no way to force anyone to attack a specific target without using quite powerful magic.
I don't think there should be either. However, I could see something that grants a penalty if another target is attacked.
Look at the all the divide and conquer type spell sleep, charm person, color spray, hold person,cause fear, any wall or terrian type Web or entangle all last more than one round. Comand, Suound bust last one round.
I like that tatic as well for the beaters not just the caster.
But... that's not forcing someone to attack you. That's disabling, and that can be very well done by fighter-types too. Check out the chapter on combat maneuvers.
Though casters will always be better at disabling and fighters will be better at damage, that's the way it's designed.
Charm person, suggestion, dominate, confusetion all can make attack or not attack some and are form of aggro mechanic again all have been in the game since 1971.
What is worst trusting that all human can be fair or aggor mechanics?