Do you think it's a dick move for GMs to have enemy groups focus-fire on single PCs whenever applicable, or is it just fair game?
Do you think it's a dick move for GMs to have enemy groups focus-fire on single PCs whenever applicable, or is it just fair game?
Player characters do it all the time, so it's entirely fair game.
Also, a well-designed game (AKA not D&Dogshit) will have ways for a party to effectively defend their more vulnerable members. In my current Lancer game, I RELISH seeing enemies trying to focus-fire our glass-cannon.
Stop being the worst poster on this board, you dumb weirdo.
Stay in the D&Drone Containment thread and you won't ever have to see the mean ol big kids talking bad about your favorite normieslop cartoon game ever again.
>Pretends to play Lancer
>Talks shit on D&D
You have zero self awareness.
Just because YOU don't play the games you claim to like doesn't mean the same is true for everyone else. I still await some actual counterpoint from you aside from just screaming TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! repeatedly while literally everyone responding to your posts points out that you've brought nothing to the table.
>No U
Sad
>Can't even read the ip tracker.
Even sadder
Lancer has all of the same core flaws of D&D. It is a class-based d20-system that tricks you into thinking it's not a 4E clone by letting you mutliclass freely in a way that destroys even a semblance of balance when player characters are compared to the premade bad guys, and it staples on a low-effort pbta clone for dealing with out of mecha stuff.
Stop being such a gameless homosexual you make RedMachineD seem sane and sedate.
What does the IP tracker have to do with anything when half tge posts in this thread are you picking fights with every other poster here? We'll try to unpack this point first before I move on to the others, alright?
Holy newbie batman, you don't even know a brand new poster in the thread when you see one.
Yes, several people have come into this thread and called you out for posting diarrhea. Still not sure what you think this has to do with me? Do you think I have 15+ phones just to samegay you from different IPs? I'm sorry to say you're not worth that kind of phone bill.
>"Oh noes! Someone pointed out an obvious flaw that's been a problem in my favorite lifestyle brand "game" for over a decade! I better prepare my most scathing zingers and insults rather than trying to actually defend the game (which is indefensibly mediocre).
Seriously though, why the frick does DnD lack any meaningful mechanics for drawing enemy aggro or defending allies. There's like Purple Dragon Knight, a class as bad as its name is moronic, and Compelled Duel, a spell that requires Concentration and thus is lost when you get AND prevents you from using a more useful Concentration spell like your FRICKING SMITES. God DnD 5e is such a fricking dumpster fire of game design. Someone hire Larion Studios to design the next edition, because their videogame is somehow a better designed tabletop game than the actual tabletop DnD it was based on.
>Seriously though, why the frick does DnD lack any meaningful mechanics for drawing enemy aggro or defending allies.
It's called Protection Style and Goading Strike you dumbfrick.
>Larian studios
Go back.
Protection Style is absolute garbage though. You're spending your whole reaction to give a single enemy disadvantage on one attack.
Meanwhile the Shield Spell lasts an entire round and Blade Ward cantrip gives damage resistance when you know an enemy is likely to hit through disadvantage anyway.
Like holy frick, DnD 5e's game design is such indefensible dogshit its unbelievable. I have seen college freshmen in game design classes produce more balanced mechanics for a game's alpha release than WotC seems able to do with a 20+ year old product.
WotC doesn't care about good game design or hiring good game designers. They care about making money with D&D's brand-recognition with normies and "geek" YouTubers.
>You're spending your whole reaction to give a single enemy disadvantage on one attack.
Yeah that attack might kill your ally. Also it's your REACTION dumbass. The worst part of protection is that you have to be standing next to them.
>shield and blade ward
Those are spells homosexual. Stop trying to turn this into an argument about your martialcuck persecution complex.
>college freshmen in game design classes
Your community college isn't a real college.
That last one isn't the sick burn you think it is. It just makes D&D look even worse if it's true.
It is a sick burn. Btw everyone thinks them and their friends' epic homebrew is "so much better" than 5e. It almost never is.
So are you going to address Goading Strike or are you going to keep coping?
Goading Strike is a single combat maneuver only available to a single subclass that is extremely limited in the amount of uses you can get out of it. It functions, but I would not call it a good base mechanic nor say it allows the subclass that gets it to function as an effective "tank" in the long term.
>pathetic mental gymnastics
Do a flip!
What part of assessing the availability and efficacy of a game mechanic you specifically asked me about is "mental gymnastics". Do you have some refute to the factual parts of my argument about it being limited to a single subclass or limited in uses? To use Goaging Strike you need to be a Battlemaster Fighter and your maneuvers are limited by Superiority Dice which max out at 4. This is fact. Please try to debate facts instead of just slinging insults.
There is barely a difference between having a shit tier, barely usable implementation of a concept and not having it at all.
See also, 5E's pathetic attemps at including the Warlord because of a promise to include every core D&D class up to that point.
>Btw everyone thinks them and their friends' epic homebrew is "so much better" than 5e. It almost never is.
But it is, that's just an incredibly low bar.
It always is. It's literally impossible to make something worse than d&d, even intentionally.
>giving disadvantage to one enemy
>meaningful tanking mechanic
Nice job ignoring when I mentioned Goading Strike as well. But that's okay I'm sure your DnD hate boner will make your favorite RPG more popular. What is it? Shadow of the Demon Lord? Fatt Coville's 4e ripoff?
I play several games and don't want any of them to be more popular. D&D can keep it's current fanbase when it's filled with people like (you). Thank God for D&D being a filter in this cesspool.
You really put too much effort into your shitposting. It makes your "agenda" way too obvious. There's literally no subtlety to it.
How are you supposed to backtrack and claim you're not just a butthurt troll when you make posts like this?
I'm sorry that me thinking you're a twat is an "agenda" or "trolling". It's just really hard to see someone being an insufferable disaster of their own making and not be like "thank God I don't have to deal with people like that".
>bla bla bla
Gonna level with you. All your posts are basically the same shit, so it's getting actually boring just calling you out.
Learn a new trick already beyond "feigned outrage".
There's something ironic about you bringing up "feigned outrage" when you've spent the last two hours having a meltdown over someone saying "D&Dogshit". I'd hate to see how you'd do in a public school system if another kid called you gay or something.
Why are you quoting my post like you imagine I'm the several people who've been calling you out?
It's a bit too late to try the Uno-Reverse card. You'd think if there were really so many people on your side, they'd actually post some shred of evidence to defend their views on D&D instead of screaming about trolls and trying "no u" repeatedly.
I'm not the one who's dumb enough to engage you, that's someone else, and they are providing evidence that's making you flip out. I'm just one of the people calling you out on being a basic b***h troll, because that's what you are.
>He said while engaging the person he' "not dumb enough to engage".
Really convincing the crowd there, kiddo.
Calling you a dumb gay isn't engaging with your argument, you dumb gay.
You've been "engaging" literally everyone in this thread...
You spend way too much time and effort trying to paint D&D as bad and trying to malign it's fans. It's pretty pathetic that you're that much of a desperate attention prostitute, on the level of running into a Chinese restaurant and shouting "Chinese food sucks!".
Even if Chinese food isn't their favorite food, everyone in the restaurant is going to think you're a homosexual.
>trying to paint D&D as bad
Nobody needs to paint D&D as bad. It (4e/5e) does that all by itself.
>and trying to malign it's fans
Its "fans" (obsessives and mayflies) are morons, anon. It may be picking low-hanging fruit, but it's hardly maligning something to call it as it is.
Bruh goading strike is a one measly disadvantage, fricking japanese systems got It right. Sword Word lets you actually cover your buddies in several ways, Tenra Bansho lets you tank damage for your buddies, fricking Nechronica has entire fricking system revolving around matching actions and reactions with your teammates to tank and create opportunities for your buddies, bringing up these two options is laughable in comparison. Trudvang lets you be more of a party shield and lone vanguard than your dumb d&d example.
Don't pipe up If you don't know anything about games
>Nechronica has entire fricking system revolving around matching actions and reactions with your teammates to tank and create opportunities for your buddies, bringing up these two options is laughable in comparison
Man. I can't go back to other systems after fighting in Nechronica. The Hinder/Support system is too good and has completely ruined 'roll for goddamn everything' systems for me forever. Fricking PF2e and it's 'flip a coin to see if your minor self-buff works this time' bullshit.
PF2E is one of the few games unironically even worse-designed than 5e somehow. It's almost fascinating. If D&D is barely trying, PF2E is actively trying... to be worse.
>The Hinder/Support system is too good
wow another variation of the Help action from 5e. So original!!!!1!!! Hand over that Ennie Award.
Anon have you even looked at the Nechronica rulebook? Supports and Hinders aren't Advantage, they're straight modifiers to a die result applied after the roll is made. They're also part of your power budget; they tend to cost AP, have a defined range, can usually only be used once per turn, and can break since they almost always come attached to parts.
Stacking Supports on a high attack roll is usually when they're most impactful because it let's you turn a normal attack into a crit, which hits harder and also let's you control where the attack lands.
>party member is rolling an attack check with a Shooting 1 + Explosive attack, meaning 1 damage gets applied to two hit locations
>rolls a 9 after mods, success.
>hitting arms and either head or torso for one damage each
>party pumps the result by 3
>result is now 12
>base hit now deals 2 extra damage and the attacker can choose any hit location
>Explosive modifier means you get to double dip on the extra damage
>a 1 damage Explosive attack that would normally total 2 damage is now hitting for 6 across two locations
You mean Portent? You don't replace rolls in Nechronica without spending Madness (or parts, for certain Positions). You just nudge them up or down.
The enemy has Hinders and Supports too. Half the game is playing chicken with the enemy and trying to force them to blow resources on stuff they would rather not bother with while they do it right back to you.
So you can edit dice rolls with fiddly little amounts after the fact to get the result you want? Sounds like metagame bullshit meant to inspire "rule of cool" which is the gayest shit ever. Thats actually worse than anything in DnD 5e.
Everything from "party pumps the result by 3" onward makes it sound like total shit
>fiddly little amounts
Nechronica is a d10 system and a success is any final result that's 6+. +/-1 is a decent jump at that scale. A Support 2 in D&D terms would be like arbitrarily deciding a roll gets +4, but your target DC is locked at 11.
>Anon have you even looked at the Nechronica rulebook?
stop bullying him, you know his adhd makes it hard for him to read
>Sword Word lets you actually cover your buddies in several ways, Tenra Bansho lets you tank damage for your buddies, fricking Nechronica has entire fricking system revolving around matching actions and reactions with your teammates to tank and create opportunities for your buddies, bringing up these two options is laughable in comparison. Trudvang lets you be more of a party shield and lone vanguard than your dumb d&d example.
Yeah and none of these games are relevant and the mechanics are probably also shit and / or exploitable. If you post how they actually work instead of vagaires like "this rule is so HECKIN awesome" then discussion could possibly be had. As is I could apply all of your vague descriptions to DnD 5e, because, again, it technically has mechanics for protecting your allies, "creating opportunities" for them, etc.
Your indie games are mostly forgettable dogshit. The few good ideas they have (I'll never deny that 5e can be improved upon) are easily ported into 5e where we can leave behind the clumsily designed overpriced indie game surrounding the one or two good ideas contained within.
>I read a bunch of shit written by trannies on itch.io so I know so much about games, pipe down
Cringe
Imagine being SO desperate for a Counterargument that you cite Protection Style as a good tanking mechanic. Either you have NO IDEA how D&D actually plays, or you're grasping at straws and hoping everyone here has even less experience than you.
>that you cite Protection Style as a good tanking mechanic.
It’s better than most anything else I’ve seen in this thread from other systems, but then I think I might have a different perception on what makes a good game mechanic and what doesn’t.
This is awful, for example. Why? Because I find myself imagining what it would be like to be facing three npcs with the ability. Every one of my attacks is now doing much less damage if I connect; and if I miss I’m now attacking one of my allies instead? And it works against area-of-effect attacks too? If these NPCs have even halfway decent defense then basically three NPCs can solo my party without firing a single shot or making a single attack, all as a result of a single ability that doesn’t have any kind of per-X limit (encounter, say, etc). That sounds *awful* to have to deal with player-side.
A valid concern if Lancer played like D&D. It doesn't. Rarely in a mission in Lancer about killing everything. The Saladin offers great defensive utility to a team, yes. It is also slow as frick weak weapons and can't defend objectives well against teams of faster mechs that will just dance around it and go do objectives while it struggles to keep up like a fat kid in gym class. Almost every mech in Lancer has its strengths, but they also all have glaring weaknesses. It's a good balance to aim for in a team based game.
>A valid concern if Lancer played like D&D. It doesn't. Rarely in a mission in Lancer about killing everything.
I’m not wholly convinced you know how D&D is played. I once played a thief from level 1 thru 8 and only actually killed two NPCs in that entire time, one of them accidentally. This was in Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
And when I ran Storm King’s Thunder as a DM, every single encounter with giants was one where the PCs could talk their way through instead of fight if they wanted. Including the “bosses” like Duke Zalto (who I portrayed as a henpecked husband going through something of a midlife crisis and building the Vonindod like a 40something dad builds a Harley).
In my homebrew campaign I ran for most of the past year and a half there were tons and tons of noncombat or combat-optional encounters, too.
D&D is and always has been about more than just fighting. Hell, I started playing in 2000 with 3e, and the 3e DMG makes a point of the fact that you earn XP by defeating an encounter but that “defeat” doesn’t mean kill. RAW in 3e, you get the same XP from bluffing or negotiating your way past an orc that you do for killing him.
>I’m not wholly convinced you know how D&D is played.
nta but I don't think there is are posters that knows less about how D&D is played than the people that "play" it the most.
How many pages in the rulebook discuss noncombat mechanics vs the number of pages discussing combat mechanics?
Nechronica just straight up let's you manipulate enemy and allied die rolls, which is a lot of fun and a pretty versatile way to build your character.
>enemy rolls a 6, Hinder 1 their die to force them to miss
>enemy rolls a 3, you and another party member both Hinder 1 them to change the roll to a 1 and force the enemy to crit fail, making their attack hit another enemy (or themselves) instead of just missing
>all the dangerous enemy parts are in their arms but your friend rolled a 10 to strike the head, and the party has no more Supports to boost it into a crit. Hinder their die down to a 9 and strike the arms anyway lmao
>nut as you bust out all the Hinders forever to force a dangerous enemy to fail a Dismember check and get decapitated on turn 1
And of course there's the good old 'GET DOWN MRS. PRESIDENT' dive to eat a nasty hit for someone else, as well as just generally being a tanky shit. I had a Doll who was immune to most basic zombies and could tank a dozen points of damage before she even had to think about slowing down. And she could stick to shitters like glue so they couldn't ignore her.
PF2e seems like it wants to be a videogame or something. I can sort of tell what the designers are going for but they're so scared of stacking buffs/debuffs that it leads to weird edge cases popping up all over the place. Like being blind doing nothing other than lowering your Perception check bonus by 4. You're telling me a dude who's just had a flashbang go off in his face is going to fence just as well as when he can see? What sort of sense does that make? Being Paralyzed and lying flat on your back results in the same AC malus as being flanked but still actively defending yourself (granted, it comes with the stuff you would normally expect of paralysis). You take a guy with 21 AC, strike him blind, deaf, and dumb, you still need to roll a 19 or higher just to fricking hit him.
>enemy rolls a 6, Hinder 1 their die to force them to miss
rolls a 3, you and another party member both Hinder 1 them to change the roll to a 1 and force the enemy to crit fail, making their attack hit another enemy (or themselves) instead of just missing
Sounds like the most overpowered bullshit imaginable.
Also 5e already has this, in the divination wizards ability.
I just played the pf2e starter and I noticed that sort of... Video Game feel. I couldn't really put my finger on it. I ran the four starter set characters simultaneously with my friend DM'ing just so we could get a handle on the rules and yeah the math felt really tight but something about it reminded me of an MMO style game or RPG with ability rotations. Something about it distinctly felt like an MMO or something idk why. Granted it was level one.
>Level 1
That feeling gets even worse as you reach higher levels.
yeah it felt very like, narrow I guess is the word I would use. You know how in some video games you can punch when you don't have a weapon equipped, but the game never accounted for players wanting to use fists as a proper weapon, so fists get immediately out scaled by everything else? That's an abstract example for the feeling I had like improvisation was difficult because so many contextual abilities were written down that without specifically being trained in them they couldn't be accessed. Also because of that training it felt the most useful abilities ended up being used over and over again. The lack of any Free Interaction grace for drawing and showing weapons or grabbing items in the environment etc also felt like it was usually plainly inefficient to do anything but whatever your main combo or contextual combo was. I know any game with levels experiences this to some degree but it kinda felt like each character was either an MMO character or a Mecha throwing numbers. I distinctly remember fighting a higher level rat that was somewhat frustrating because the characters were missing very frequently and it could knock out 1/2th-80% of a character's hp in a single attack when in a game like 5e something that small would usually just get punted across the room. The lack of opportunity attacks or other universal threat mechanics combined with the ability to use your whole turn to move very very far also made everything feel very loose and difficult to lock down positions or punish movement; very frequently the fighter would be in melee with several enemies while the rogue went to flank only for the enemies to casually walk past everyone to flank the rogue forming a sort of debuff conga line. And frequently I found it very easy to sprint around any semblance of cover because even my slowest PC could travel 15 squares in a turn if they really had to which spanned the distance of multiple rooms easily. The game felt very balanced though.
Attacks of Opportunity are one of those things that martial classes will get eventually. I think my current dude will get it at level 8 thanks to our GM letting us take free archetype feats at even levels. Otherwise he'd be SoL though because Inventor's design is kinda schizo.
the premades had a single character with attack of opportunity. But the enemies had some sort of ability that allowed them to bypass it due to being kobolds. Either way things just felt incredibly slippery in that game. It's more just the fact that *most* things don't have anything of the sort to discourage sliding all over the room rather than the total lack of it. Sort of how earlier in the thread people cite protection style in 5e being totally useless for tanking in 5e because disadvantage on a single attack for a single character just does not do enough to discourage enemies whatsoever.
In my experience, it feels like every time I try and do something I run into arbitrary checks and balances.
>you can do cool stuff!
>but not that thing
>and to do that other thing you need to take a -5 penalty because of the MAP
>and you also can't do it unless you have a free hand
>putting your hand back on your two handed weapon takes a whole other action btw
Seriously, RAW you can't just shove a dude with your shield. You have to stow the shield or your weapon so you can shove them with your hand. To avoid this you'd have to have a particular type of weapon that allowed you to shove with it still equipped, so if you're holding a mace you can shove but if you're holding a sword suddenly you can't anymore. Shoving with a two-handed weapon is a level two Fighter feat. To knock a guy prone with a shove you need to be a Rogue and take a level 6 feat just for that purpose.
You can deal with this shit in vidya because it's a computer program and it's just going to be limited, but there are roadblocks all over PF2e for inane shit and it just doesn't feel like a role-playing game.
Things seem to open up at higher levels where you naturally get more options but I doubt it ever stops feeling like a weird computer tactics game and more like an actual adventuring system.
Jesus I can't imagine playing a game like this. Do the designers not even play their own game? How could they possibly imagine anyone would enjoy this?
You can be easily surprised by how often that pops up with TTRPGs.
Pick a class with the Shield Shover feat
>Like being blind doing nothing other than lowering your Perception check bonus by 4. You're telling me a dude who's just had a flashbang go off in his face is going to fence just as well as when he can see?
So you haven't read the system? Not being able to see your enemy means you have a flat 50% to miss every attack, IF you can guess their location in the first place, and only THEN you do the d20 check.
this is a dumb take. I don't even know what game that ability is from, but I assume the enemies will have ways of dealing with this stuff.
A game mechanic doing something ineffectively doesn't become good because you don't like the concept, you fricking moron.
Lancer has different statblocks for player and enemy mechs. Player mechs are generally more sturdy and have more effective defensiv abilities, while enemy mechs are glass cannons with emphasis on "cannon" - they hurt a lot but there's many ways to mitigate the damage if you play smart.
Christ, the Lancer designers are moronic. Those are the kind of tricks that only work on idiots who can't figure out that the enemies are not scary despite their big offensive numbers because you have big defensive numbers.
It's so fricking painfully pointless that I'm really sad they apparently stopped teaching algebra in schools.
No, it's you who is moronic because you approach everything from the D&D "durr we stand in the open field and bash each other's heads in in turn" point of view.
Lancer has defensive abilities, not numbers, so the duty of keeping your pilot alive falls solely onto you. If your dumb ass just waltzes into a killzone of 2+ mechs, you are going to be rolling a lot of structure damage really soon. Having cover, separating the dangerous foes and threat assessment is what wins a Lancer skirmish, not numbers.
>numbers are not what keep you alive, using numbers is what keeps you alive
Stop posting. You are too fricking stupid.
Skip to the end and just tell us you're tactically incompetent.
> Those are the kind of tricks that only work on idiots who can't figure out that the enemies are not scary despite their big offensive numbers because you have big defensive numbers.
Eh...no. NPCs can be absolutely terrifying under the right circumstances. They benefit from synergies just as much as player mechs. For example, a Scout can give a Demolisher lock-ons while the Demolishers stunlock a player with demolition hammers.
Read Protection Style from D&D 5e.
Now read Defensive Pulse from
pic-related.
Now try your absolute hardest to take D&D's wiener out of your mouth and tell me which honestly sounds like a better defensive ability. Keyword here: honestly. I want to see just how strong of a hold your delusions have.
There's a lot of room for improvement, but the point is that there are tanking mechanics in 5e, they DO function, and you need to deal with that.
Also, I love how you conveniently ignored goading Strike again lol.
Also Lancer is a pozzed fricking disaster of a game and you're a homosexual for playing it. I guess that makes me a homosexual too cause technically I did play it once snd it was so depressingly mediocre and style-over-substance artgay hipster shit that I had to stop playing.
>I'm so above it all by not quoting anyone and just generally calling everyone morons while not presenting any argument myself (and probably having already posted in this thread and false flagging to make my opinion seem more popular)
Kys
>He said as if D&D wasn't one of the most "pozzed" games on the modern market right now.
Something something people in glass houses throwing stones.
DnD was created by a rightwing extremist who was in an FBI watchlist. It's been pozzed but in core concept it isn't. Lancer on the other hand is pozzed to the core.
Not the Lancer anon but if you weren’t moronic you would know Menacing Strike is a far superior defensive move to Goading Strike, and that even then neither of them are particularly good.
>It's called Protection Style
Lol
Lmao even
Not an argument.
>Seriously though, why the frick does DnD lack any meaningful mechanics for drawing enemy aggro or defending allies.
Have you tried playing 4th edition?
No, and I don't ever intend to.
>drawing aggro
It's not a video game. If you want the AI to act like morons then go play a video game.
He says as he plays the enemies like it's a war game with no concern about their own survival, just to take a few more HP off the PC's
Just filter the moron(s). Easy to catch since they are all broken records.
If I could filter every poster that formats like
>long ass paragraph
>long ass paragraph
>nothing of worth said at all
I would but outside of /tg/ they occasionally aren't morons and I don't believe the filter accounts for this. filtering troll would probably be enough though
Every GM I have ever had that thinks this also could not understand that, if you want to make the enemies as tactical as PC's, you also have to make them as casualty-averse. Every person I've met that uses a justification like "obviously the enemies would be smart enough to target the squishy wizard and ignore the beefy fighter" can't disengage enough to realize that an enemy that smart would also not want to fight suicidally to the last man, in the hopes of taking off another few HP, so you're left with this miserable fricking form of human wave tactics getting thrown at whoever has the lowest AC, like you're playing a wargame against an enemy with infinite reserves. If a goblin knows can run up and knife the wizard in the gut, he should still think twice if it's clear he'll get fricking pasted by the fighter after, even if it makes sense from a top-down wargame sense.
The loss of morale rules has been a disaster for D&Drones across the globe.
Also the bizarre insistence that XP only comes from kills.
I'm glad my groups original DM always held onto the idea that "dealing" with encounters is what gets you exp, not just killing them. Then the next DM I had decided only people who dealt the killing blow got exp, which led to the spellcasters being like 4 levels ahead of everyone else, and then the rest of the party occasionally committing suicide to reroll a higher level character.
>Then the next DM I had decided only people who dealt the killing blow got exp
Unfathomably based.
>In active combat
>see my compatriots in combat
>also seeing the enemy in combat
>learn absolutely nothing
What a fricking stupid idea
Who are you quoting?
underrated
Okay you say D&Dogshit but Lancer is just 4E with a mecha coat of paint. It's fun, sure, but let's be honest with ourselves here.
Depends on the circumstances. For example, if my players have pissed me off I'll have their next foes focus down their healer first
Lancer actually encourages you to focus down players. Besides the 4 Structure giving the players more durability it's a necessary punish for overoptimizing for DPS and not having any support.
Pretty sure that 4E didn't have License Level equivalents. In fact, 4E's multiclass feature was actually kinda jank. Just by using Limited X rather than Encounter or Daily pretty much solved all my issues with 4E.
Also, Lancer does Reactions differently with one Reaction per turn rather than one per round.
I strongly disagree on the limited vs encounter and daily concept. Having an ability that refreshes on an encounter basis encourages you freely use your fun or interesting tools where they would have the most effect, rather than being encouraged to horde it in case the GM has arbitrarily decided to change the number of encounters in the mission. It also reduces the incentive and then blow all of your resources on a boss/elite encounter and obliterate it with little or no sense of satisfaction.
Your Limited uses increase with Engineering skill and you can always replenish them between encounters with a repair point.
However, if you're still worried about running out of your best weapon, keep in mind that worrying about something means you care about it and a game can't engage you if you don't care. By giving the players a dillema the game is more fun and less hand-holdy.
Finally, having Limited abilities just speeds up gameplay as you aren't going through your class lists trying to pick the appropriate Encounter ability out of dozens of neigh identical abilities.
>striker, defender, controller
>trigger, effect
frick off with your 4e nonsense
Lancer is just as bad as 5E, and ultimately worse than BattleTech. It's mecha for kiddies using RNG on top of RNG to RNG whether your RNG is good enough.
>complaining about RNG
>praises battletech
Looks like your ammo cooked off and killed a few too many of your brain cells.
Fair.
Fair game, but ideally the situation should never be such that the PC(s) can't do anything about it.
If your players wanted realism then it's fair game if not don't abuse it, it's a game not your bully playgrounds.
Depends on the situation. It can absolutely be fair game if it's the only viable target, or when they have constituted a singular threat, or when they are the easiest target, etc.
Enemy groups should act as makes sense for them in the spur of the moment, and what makes sense is going to differ greatly from group to group, person to person, situation to situation. A group of commandos doing an attack with act very differently from a camp of untrained brigands taken by surprise.
>makes sense
>get in enemy head
>intelligent enemies should fight intelligently
>dumb enemies should fight dumbly
The correct way.
>fudge meta
The wrong way.
>b***h about muh worst poster
The Black persongay way. D&Dogshit will never not be D&Dogshit.
Depends greatly on the context, particularly the tone of the game. If they have opportunities to scout ahead and prepare themselves to stack the odds in their favour, it's fine. If you just drop a load of monsters on them and crush them one by one it's a b***h move from someone desperate to "win" a game despite being the referee.
Worth pointing out that some systems have hard mechanics to force enemies to focus on a specific PC. So in that case, ignoring that would be wrong. But I assume you know that.
I usually try to get in the enemy's head. A pack hunter like wolves or goblins will pile onto one enemy and might only go for others if attacked. Organized enemies might try to focus on vulnerable targets while holding some of their force to avoid reprisal. A dumb enemy like beastmen is just going to prioritize whoever is closest and loudest.
I try to subtly rotate damage around players to keep them on their toes, but when a mechwarrior chooses to jump out in front of the already spring tank ambish while his team mates all stay behind the hill, you know I am going to roll a half dozen AC-10 shots on one dude.
Fair game, so long as "whenever applicable" is not all the time. Intelligent enemies should fight intelligently, but you should change up monsters and tactics from time to time as fighting Orc Team 6 constantly can be just as dull as wave after wave of mindless zombies
Fair game, as long as you don't overdo it.
Try to think if it makes sense that these specific enemies should target that specific character. Stuff like intelligent/prepared enemies (especially those who know the party) taking out the threats first makes sense and can be a good challenge for players. Same for enemies who have a specific reason to target one party member specifically (like they want to consume strong magic or they're here to take revenge on one of them).
When every group of goblins and every monster always starts targetting one guy because he has the strongest build that's lame.
Depends on the encounter, I think. Most work best when enemies attack at random or whoever poses the greatest threat at the moment. Most of the time, focusing on a single guy feels like bullying so I make It a very apparent part of the encounter. "The orc chief focuses his eyes on the caster and shouts orders. The rest of the band will be focusing on the selected target". It makes the party go "oh shit", reevaluate their strat and most importantly, shows them that It's part of the enemy strat and not a case of gm bullying. Anything more subtle than that and you gonna see some butthurt
Telegraph that you're doing it, and the players have no room to complain. They always do it too.
Absolutely fair game. Enemies should act as appropriate to their intelligence/personality/level of training.
As a player, part of what I enjoy about rpgs is the tactical aspect. If my GM only ever threw morons at us then I'd be bored as frick.
Jesus christ, the trolls in this thread have never played a game in their life.
Most of those "trolls" seem to have alot more gaming experience than you, kiddo.
Free advice from an adult: In the adult world, when you're arguing for something, it helps to know what you're talking about and provide actual evidence. This isn't the middle school lunchroom, you need to try a bit harder than flinging shit and then crying "trolls!" when everyone calls you a moron.
Lol, you think anyone can take you seriously when all of your posts are just various flavor of "[popular thing] bad!"?
You're the most basic b***h of basic b***h trolls, and you're not fooling anyone with all the effort you put into trying to figure out how to needlessly insert how mad you are about [popular thing].
>tanking mechanics
Wait? morons think "mechanics that encourages you to put yourself in braindead danger that are about as video gamey as can be" is good design?
Man, we really did lose a generation to Diablo, and now they're even bitter about it.
If you think that giving the players proper options for protecting other party members is bad then I don't know what to tell you, playing Diablo might be your thing, ironically enough
>proper options for protecting other party members
"Come here and beat me up" or "Let me use myself as a shield" are not proper options. They're moronic. Kinda like you, especially because it's clear you've never actually stopped to think about just how dumb the "tank" role is and why games that are not stuck in an MMORPG mindset have long since moved on or never bothered with that artificial role in the first place.
There's plenty of strategies and tactics that intelligently provide options to defend your allies. Deliberately throwing yourself at enemies and begging them to kill you is just about as moronic as a "strategy" could be, hence why the mechanics often have to work overtime to try and make such a stupid strategy even halfway viable.
>"Come here and beat me up" or "Let me use myself as a shield" are not proper options
Since fricking when, valiant knight protecting others, shouting shit like "I'll hold them, do your thing!" is a fantasy staple, fat older than mmos. It's embarassing to think that having the option to do that is bad and that It isn't engaging for the players
>the valiant knight using mind control to get everyone to attack him instead of the half-naked bundles of sticks that are easily accessible just by ignoring him
>the valiant knight using multiple layers of magic to try and make himself invincible just so his plan of using himself as a literal meat shield doesn't end tragically like it does every time someone in a novel tries to perform a "last stand"
You know why it's called a last stand, right?
>The party is always fighting a massive group of highly mobile enemies
>the valiant knight protects in last stand scenarios only, never for the squishy to run away or for the mage to finish up casting his best spell
Amazing imagination, bro
...is your post supposed to be something? It's like you just shat it out without even thinking.
Hell, we're not even talking about someone being creative or imaginative and adapting to an evolving situation. We're talking about a "role" baked into a character that they're expected to consistently perform, centered around an incredibly stupid strategy that exists solely from idiots trying to figure out how to min/max Offense/Defense builds and settling on some of the most braindead and contrived ways to try and force the role to work.
Instead of recognizing that min/max strategies are inherently inflexible and tend to fail when used against opposition that is not forced to used the least optimal counter strategies, the tank role only ever works when the game jumps through hoops and over hurdles to try and make it work.
Even tanks don't operate like the tank role does in MMORPGs. There is no real-world equivalent to the role, because the role can't exist unless the game bends over backwards to accomodate it.
"I have better defense, I should take the more dangerous positions" can only go so far before it just becomes "I've invested too much in defense; my main role now is to attract attacks and I naturally discourage them."
That's a lot of text for missing the point. In a good system, covering for others is a fun and engaging option. Your understanding of "tanking" is incredibly shallow and shows your experience in games. No hate here but shit's a bit sad
"Covering for others" is not what "Tanking" is. You can cover for others from the backline. You can protect others without centering your entire strategy around attracting and absorbing attacks.
There's no point in trying to defend Tanking if you're just going to say "Well, yeah, tanking is dumb and people should use alternative strategies."
moron. Don't reply to me when it's clear you've never even considered how dumb Tanking is until this very moment. Come back in a week when you're not struggling to undo what Diablo did to you.
>"Covering for others" is not what "Tanking" is.
NTA but you seem to have a pretty restricted view of how this term is used. 'Tanking' in MMOs is pretty broadly used to refer to absorbing damage from the enemy via active participation/mitigation. Something is tanky if it takes a long time to kill, and it has to be dealt with first before the enemy can get to the squishy guys. And there are plenty of examples where the 'tank' is not just throwing itself in the way of the enemy and calling it a day. EVE Online has the whole concept of speed-tanking where you are literally just too fast to be hit, and other MMOs have done dodge tanking before. Tanking isn't just eating damage, it's also active disruption; disarm effects, slows, just generally being in the way and being a pain in the ass to dislodge. Even in the MMO PvP space where taunts don't work, protection warriors in WoW were a huge pain in the dick for a long time because they were hard to kill but you still had to devote loads of resources to locking them down or else they'd be super disruptive with AoE stuns, spell reflects, disarms, etc. That warrior is the team tank, cause he HAS to be dealt with and he will eat loads of damage that would kill his squishy teammates.
I don't understand why we haven't even brought up an actually good tanking utility for 5e: Sentinel. It straight up let's you body block and run interference for your backline. Someone wants to go bully the mage? Too bad for them, they got too close to you and now their speed is 0. They have to deal with you now. Too bad for them you're a fighter and can dump a bajillion attacks directly into their face.
>threat: eliminated
>party: safe
>resources expended: none
>Tanking isn't just eating damage, it's also active disruption; disarm effects, slows, just generally being in the way and being a pain in the ass to dislodge.
No, you're conflating the concept. You might as well say Tanking is about movement, because Tanks can move.
The fundamental defining quality of Tanks is they want attacks directed at them. How they mitigate those attacks varies, as do how the games try to encourage attacks to be directed at them, but the core concept of the role is simply the guy who raises their hand first when the group is asked "Who wants to be attacked? It's got to be someone."
It's a strategy that exists under only very specific circumstances, requires artificially induced incentives and mitigated repercussions, and ultimately is a role that exists because of poor design taken to its exaggerated limits.
MMORPG roles are bad design, and come from MMORPGs generally being terribly designed. WoW is not a good game. Eve Online is also not a good game. While somewhat analogous concepts to Tanks have existed since as far back as when men first donned armor and picked up shields, it's only when "What if we take defense too far" that the Tank role is born. It's only when designers allow a game to warp around the role that Tanking is a viable strategy.
>The fundamental defining quality of Tanks is they want attacks directed at them.
nope
tanking is about making sure the enemy attacks are ineffective. Sure that can be by making the enemy attack the person with the most health, but the point is mitigating damage to the party.
>making sure enemy attacks are ineffective
That's what barrier defenses, healing, stealth, midirection, and so on also do, and in a very different manner than what a Tank is expected to do.
No, those are all methods that a tank might use.
Im just lurking but i think you have nailed it there. Its kind of blatant when its laid down like that.
>tanks use stealth and illusions and are the main source of healing and defensive buffs in the party
You're moronic.
Being the main source of defensive buffs is absolutely the norm for tanks. And yes, if you'd played more games/systems, you'd know that there are absolutely tank archetypes that use misdirection and healing to support their defensive purpose.
>Being the main source of defensive buffs is absolutely the norm for tanks.
Wrong, that primarily goes to the healers in the Tank/DPS/Nuke/Healer MMO square. Tanks get defensive buffs for themselves, Healers provide defensive buffs for the party. In general, nothing you say makes any sense, because you're using an incorrect definition of Tank.
Not all games are the same, and some include roles different or variations on Tank/Nuke/DPS/Healer. But even 4e goes out of its way to confirm those roles almost explicitely, with Defender/Controller/Striker/Leader. If you don't understand these roles and are using games that put a spin on them (such as healers/tanks being combined into one role or Nukes being omitted entirely, etc.) for examples, you're just demonstrating that you don't even have the most basic level of understanding to be in this conversation.
Please, educate yourself before opening your mouth again.
The valiant knight in this instance could simply position himself in an optimal position where the enemies can't run by without potentially being intercepted, moronic homosexual.
>I live in a world that's a single corridor
That must suck.
You're a fricking moron
>we really did lose a generation to Diablo,
Tanking mechanics has no place in a TTRPG, and even just thinking in these moronic discrete terms of "muh tank" and "muh dps" is deeply cancerous, but as a veteran and fan of Diablo, I must ask you: What the frick are you talking about, Jesse?
Diablo doesn't have anything like that, nor did the single most defining game of the genre and series, its sequel, Diablo 2. If you were playing multiplayer and wanted to protect the other player, what you had to do was go first and that was basically it. It was extremely rudimentary. How the frick can you confuse Diablo with MMO mechanics?
Diablo generation was 3e, though, and they're the ones that get up in arms about the very concept of "tanking mechanics".
GOD I WISH THAT WAS ME
The fact that I'm not surrounded by cute beastgirls (furry or otherwise) is the biggest dick move here.
Fair and the more the players cry the more I fudge the dice in the enemies' favor
No game system specified.
In my OSR D&D games enemies focus on enemy targets at my judgement of their intelligence and current coordination. This means they often focus on good targets, even goblins are smart enough to shoot the magic user.
But the players have one edge, they have the ability to perfectly communicate their plan among themselves at any time during the game by virtue of sitting around a table irl. The monsters don't, and I simulate that aspect.
I also allow all "metagaming", all metagaming is literally just gaming. People who don't like metagaming are storyshitters.
I saved that for super smart enemies and boss fights. otherwise it was easier to plan encounters if I had the baddies act like the ones in action movies. one per hero, or at least evenly distributed
nobody in 5e can pull aggro from a horde of ranged enemies. Conquest pally can eventually hold a group of enemies in place around them, Ancestral Barbarian can really pull in a fight with a single major boss. There's some other stuff too but like, proper taunt mechanics don't really exist in 5e
That's not really a problem 5e's a game built around dungeon crawling it's not a surprise that open field combat isn't exactly its specialty, and in more cramped conditions a hoard of ranged enemies typically doesn't work due to the simple tactic of placing a wall between you and the hoard's main location. That's also part of why 5e doesn't exactly need many tanking mechanics as most encounters take place in a location with a natural funnel called the entrance into the room where the encounter is to use to limit the enemies access to party members. All this is just basic tactics you could do all the way in ADnD BTW.
I can think of plenty of totally reasonable in-dungeon scenarios where this is simply not the case. For the record I like 5e. A major counter to that logic is that most adventures include the players invading or otherwise progressing through an area. So let's say they encounter a bunch of undead bowmen guarding a wide room and then back into a hallway to try to bait them to a choke point. Depending on the enemy they can simply hold their advantageous position. The correct answer to tanking is actually to play a boss grappler and let your caster AoE anything that is a horde capable of being oneshot.
>5e's a game built around dungeon crawling
5e is barely even a game in the proper sense.
I like to have enemies focus-fire on tanky characters or those who have just received defensive buffs from an ally, that way they feel like they're getting a lot of value out of their choices and it rewards their fantasy of wading through attacks (mostly) unharmed. Otherwise, I just have enemies do what seems logical for them to do. Mindless beasts will attack the closest target, intelligent enemies will probably go for those they assess as the greatest threat. I don't really use coordinated strategy for them unless they're well-trained in group tactics or have some sort of telepathic communication method.
dress the naked warrior barbarian in wizard robes. He doesn't need armor so you simply hide his physique and when the bad guys bum rush him he drops the little stick he was pretending was a wand and suplexes a death knight
Can 4e fighters and paladins defend the party well?
>fighter
yes
>paladin
no, along with warlock they are the most dogshit class to come out of phb1
Why are you playing 4e with only PHB1?
I'm not, he specified fighter and paladin
are you illiterate?
But you can play a PHB1 class with stuff from newer books.
Divine Power makes 4e paladins really good.
With Divine Power, you gain access to options such as:
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power3687 for a Charisma-based melee basic attack, thus making Charisma/Wisdom paladins significantly more viable
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power3689 to divine sanction each enemy within 3 squares.
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power7248 to divine sanction each enemy within 3 squares yet again.
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=power7257 to damage and debuff the attacks of each enemy within 3 squares, and mind you, the penalty can be crippling coming from a Charisma/Wisdom paladin
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=feat1559 to gain damage resistance whenever you spend a healing surge, which will be rather option, given that Lay on Hands costs a healing surge
In the 4e circles I am familiar with, opening up the entire compendium for player access is fairly common. This opens up Divine Protector Expertise, a fantastic paladin feat. The +1 shield bonus to AC applies to all allies, no matter what, constantly.
http://iws.mx/dnd/?view=feat3741
Christ, 2hu still here infodump shitting things up whenever 4e is mentioned?
Pretty much all of the 4e defender classes have threat and taunt mechanics and group defensive buffs that make then capable of defending a party well. Some focus more on support while others focus more on damage, but as a tank they all work
So it's literally a MMO?
Yeah, despite what 4rries tell, it was literally designed to be a tabletop MMO. It's called WoW edition here for a reason.
If you've literally never played an MMO, yes. Marking is works nothing like "aggro" and on the DM's side actually encourages ignoring the "Tank" to attack other party members because doing so will trigger a punish, which is far more fun and satisfying for the party than just having everyone wail on the big guy in armor.
>various of other systems mentioned in the thread talking about how they can "hold aggro" or "defend the party"
>someone mentions 4e once
>so it's an mmo?
why are you guys still so obsessed with 4e? We're about to reach 6e and you're still mad.
4e was the world's first tabletop MMO, simple.
Wrong, it was 3e which had the official WoW books.
No, especially when said PC does something provocative, but the other PCs should be given notice that the enemy's adopted a lethal strategy like that beyond waiting to see where all the rolls land, and influence their behavior away from that with distractions and such.
If they didn't want to get surrounded and stomped, maybe they should have positioned themselves better.
It depends on the context.
The GM shouldn't be playing like a wargamer who is trying to defeat the party. That's moronic. The GM already has complete control. He should be roleplaying the group of enemies. He should see the party through the eyes of the pack of minorities assailing them, and ask what they would do if they were actual beings and not pieces on a board.
Right: The goblins decide to gang up on the wizard, because he looks far less intimidating than the barbarian AND he's left himself out in the open.
Wrong: The goblins decide to completely ignore the frontline, taking massive grievous casualties as they just surge through, because the GM wants the wizard to die and the goblins are mere resources on a board to be spent to accomplish this, not creatures with their own thoughts and agendas.
Player group on enemies non-stop, so why shouldn't their enemies do the same? Then again, I play with well-adjusted adults, so I don't have to deal with all the bingo issues that people shitpost on /tg/, including someone throwing a fit, because their character died or the entire crowd they've attacked focused on them.
An enemy's INT or WIS score should determine how tactically proficient an enemy is, and in what way.
High INT creatures should be like someone who memorized chess plays, or a football coach of sorts.
High WIS characters should be used to adapting to the shifting (and sometimes unexpected) ebb and flow of combat naturally morso through muscle memory and physical experience.
It's fair. That's why when you play a wizard, you don't dress as a wizard. Carry a shortsword and wear commoner clothes.
Tanking by compelling characters to attack you has as much to do with RPGs as the Mario Super Star does.
I run superhero games where it's possible for two PCs to have widely different defenses. There's no social contract strong enough to make enemies shoot at Colossus instead of Cyclops if Colossus makes zero effort to force engagement.
Yes, but it's realistic. Anytime I play a RPG I dogpile the caster as soon as I canz as they're usually glass cannons by design. I don't see why a reasonably intelligent enemy wouldn't target the caster as well.
It really depends on the foe. Goblins or colonial marines might remember to focus fire, elite deathsquads will have near-optimal tactics, and stupid enemies will not be so coordinated.
Not a dick move at all. The only thing that should factor into it is how fun it is overall. I will very happily target single players as a once-in-a-while surprise or to punish him for rushing the enemy/objective.
Other times I'll do it because I made the combat too easy and desperately need to up the stakes a bit.
Obviously, roleplay should take precedence. It should only be done if it's a sound tactical move (assuming the enemy is intelligent) and makes sense given the enemies' goals.
I run my games like XCOM. When players aren't attached to a specific OC mary sue self insert, they don't throw tantrums when one dies. And yet, when one particular character manages to survive across multiple missions, their investment is all the greater and more real for there having been no guarantee that they would have survived.
Not only fair game, suggested game. Enemies using tactics and hunting as a unit will force the players to work together in new and unique ways instead of just fragging out solo with the same boring win button that they use every session. It's a GROUP game, make the players protect each other as a GROUP. Focus fire on the mage might make the tank physically step in front of them. Focus fire on the hacker might make the mage cast some creative or defensive spells instead of fireball every time. Focus fire on the tank... well, that's exactly what they want to happen, right?
Not really. The most effective way to defend anyone is to kill whatever's attacking them. Dead enemies deal zero damage.
Well yeah I agree, but most enemies know that they're fighting experts (heroes, runners, elite soldiers, whatever have you). So yes they'll target whatever is attacking them, but they'll do it as a unit to increase their chance of knocking the players out quickly. Dead/unconscious players also deal zero damage.
For the most part enemy groups aside from animals will target spellcasters or AOE users first because it makes sense to go for the guy that's hitting multiple of your guys then the one dude with a sword and shield.
It's perfectly normal for enemies to use basic strategy to fight the PCs.
You need to play D&Dfinder first before you find reasons to why it's bad, not spout nonsense and hope you're right
Other way around. It wastes more resources to have to spread around healing.
Depends on the enemy. Mindless oozes? Not unless the person seems really tasty. Bears? If they think they can kill the weakest thing grab it and run then eat it in safety later, yeah sure. Otherwise probably not. Goblins, they're smart enough to know dead people stop attacking, so they might try to focus fire during an ambush, though the plan would probably start to devolve as they started getting attacked back. Strahd von Zarovich, millenia old wizard vampire with 20 int, near-perfect scrying based knowledge of the party's composition and tactics, and undoubtedly weeks of prep time? He is absolutely walking onto the ceiling and walling the Paladin in with Animate Objects first thing, then have those beat him until he's dead, sped along with blight or a chill touch to prevent any healing shenanigans. That's just tactical, he knows the paladin is the biggest threat, and the most easily shut down.
Smart villains played smartly should always feel like you're being unfair and metagaming, because they basically are. Because villains DON'T fight fair, they fight underhanded with every dirty trick and dick move that might work, and because that's what being smart feels like, metagaming at life. You notice things, and deduce things, and think to find out things, that other people are walking into blind. Roll some skill rolls if you need to justify it, that's what you'd have a player do. But that's what you need to do.
>o have enemy groups focus-fire on single PCs
the intelligent ones that have proper reason to fear the said pc and information confirming their fears beforehand should do this, or most likely would.
Depends on the context. If the enemy is making a beeline straight for a particular player to the point of provoking attacks and showing his back to other threats to do so, then he better have a good reason. People will say "a reasonable enemy would want to eliminate the squishiest yet most dangerous targets first instead of attacking the big tanky dude" but it's only reasonable for a ranged attacker or an ambusher to think that way. No reasonable melee combatant would happily present his back to the big tanky dude.
PCs have their melee attackers rush the backline support all the time.