|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Goons in a flame war about tanking mechanics calling other Goons alpha nerds. But why is it an obvious choice? And if it's a choice, what are the variables in play? All you're saying is, if there's a fighter next to the monster, the monster should be forced to attack the fighter. Marking does not require extensive game knowledge. Obviously you haven't thought this scenario through at all. If the Wizard is doing literally nothing but standing there, you're just being intentionally obtuse because that's not what wizards do. If the monster is ignoring the wizard in favor of the fighter and an actual choice is being made, it's because some sort of mechanic the fighter is using, whether it's opportunity attacks or class features, are being utilized here. Or do you think that you should just remove opportunity attacks, which only martial classes ever really use anyway, and rely on clever plans and positioning? Should the rogue just be smarter about what he's doing instead of getting sneak attack damage? Also, again, you obviously don't know how 4e works. Marking does not force the BBEG to attack the defender. Also, in your scenario, how is the fighter supposed to utilize clever plans and positioning? An empty circular room with just him and the wizard fighting some dude? Terrain and the abilities the classes and bad guys bring to the table are what make fights interesting in D&D!
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
The real problem is that apparently the Fighter's job is to find the best place to sit and take damage, so that the real classes can actually handle the battle. And that's if the DM decided to be super-nice and make a map with choke points that one character can block, because there aren't many ways to do that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Fighters being able to encourage enemies attack them - lazy Wizards being able to ignore half the damage they take - using your brain
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Seriously, the game is not flawed because of a lack of hard tanking mechanics to force monsters to hit the character with the highest AC and HP. Those kinds of mechanics are lazy, letting players and DMs off the hook for actually knowing how to play wisely. I genuinely don't think there is a edition with 'hard tanking mechanics to force monsters to hit the character with the highest AC and HP.' Please do point one out if you know one. And even if there WERE what makes them lazy? You still have to make an effort to use them in the right place, against the right monster, and potentially to spend your limited resources or actions at the right time to use them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:And even if there WERE what makes them lazy? Like I said before, the fact that you don't need to "play the game Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Glen Cook's wizards, at least in the Black Company series, are also a gaggle of freaks that wear whatever their little black hearts desire. Though, amusingly, their power level in relation to martials is similar to 3E's... They're also not PCs. It's kinda telling that all the examples of cool awesome wizards are all inevitably either NPCs or the evil baddie. Wizard players literally don't want to play the same game as you. They want you to be Odysseus, and they get to be Poseidon. But stronger. SwitchbladeKult posted:New players and casuals shouldn't need mechanics that force monsters to focus the tank nor do thet need extensive game knowledge. Make it difficult for monsters to mover over to the caster through the tools you have. What tools? You cannot loving say "players don't need tools that force monsters to focus on baddies" and then in the very next sentence say "just use your tools!" Also literally no edition save 3.x has given a "you MUST attack me" button.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
The original argument was whether or not D&D is poo poo because either the DM has to ignore the "obvious" or metagame and use the tactic of kill the caster first. That's a dumb way to frame it. The game is not a void where monsters can just freely run up to the caster and murder them. It's not the case that the DM has to play dumb or murder your wizard. If that is the case either your players are asking for it or the DM sucks at building interesting and fun encounters for the players. Sorry that didn't come across the first time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:The original argument was whether or not D&D is poo poo because either the DM has to ignore the "obvious" or metagame and use the tactic of kill the caster first. That's a dumb way to frame it. The game is not a void where monsters can just freely run up to the caster and murder them. It's not the case that the DM has to play dumb or murder your wizard. If that is the case either your players are asking for it or the DM sucks at building interesting and fun encounters for the players. Sorry that didn't come across the first time. The problem is that mechanics shape gameplay; in an absence of solid mechanics for preventing something, how should gameplay turn out? No matter how clever you are, in an absence of mechanics it's nothing but a gentlemen's agreement that allows fighters to function as defenders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:The game is not a void where monsters can just freely run up to the caster and murder them. Why isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Why isn't it? Because if you're playing
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:No matter how clever you are, in an absence of mechanics it's nothing but a gentlemen's agreement that allows fighters to function as defenders. What's wrong with agreeing to reasonably run the encounters when setting out to run an elfgame? The entire DM/Player dynamic is built on the gentleman's agreement that you don't act like a complete dick and throw 4,000 orcs at them at level 1, or give them all some sort of imaginary plague or just blow up the whole stupid planet with a meteor. Running combat's in order to provide an exciting challenge, but NOT gently caress over the players for no reason is just part of that agreement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Remember, only one opportunity attack per round!Bob Quixote posted:What's wrong with agreeing to reasonably run the encounters when setting out to run an elfgame? Who's defining what's reasonable here? I have guidelines for how difficult an encounter ought to be for my party when I build it. Is there something about D&D that ought to require you to play softball with the party even though you know better? S.J. fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Remember, only one opportunity attack per round! Yeah, this strikes me as an oversight. If a fighter requires multiple attacks to be dangerous at high levels, won't opportunity attacks from them get half as threatening when they get two attacks, then a third as threatening when they get three and so on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:What's wrong with agreeing to reasonably run the encounters when setting out to run an elfgame? There's nothing wrong with that at all. Now think up an encounter that will be an exciting challenge for both Billy Bob the fighter with some pretty good magic equipment, and Mordamoth the necromancer with instant death spells and an army of skeletons. Gort posted:Yeah, this strikes me as an oversight. If a fighter requires multiple attacks to be dangerous at high levels, won't opportunity attacks from them get half as threatening when they get two attacks, then a third as threatening when they get three and so on? Same goes for Second Wind, and I can't remember if Action Surge gives you a full set of attacks or just one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:What's wrong with agreeing to reasonably run the encounters when setting out to run an elfgame? Because if classes have mechanics that support their intended styles of play it is immensely easier for the DM to actually make encounters that are exciting challenges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Because if you're playing It's an earnest question. If fighters should not be given any tools to entice enemies to attack him, then why shouldn't enemies just run past and gank the wizard? I want an actual answer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
I don't understand how mechanics that enable tanking are dumb and lazy but just agreeing to have everything attack the fighter because the DM thinks it's more enjoyable is neither dumb nor lazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:What's wrong with agreeing to reasonably run the encounters when setting out to run an elfgame? Because apparently the only way a characters existence is valid is if there is a hard ironclad rule stating so. Remember, every encounter you have to stand toe to toe with all the monsters in the fight so if the "tank" can't "taunt" the monster will just one shot the caster. God, D&D is such a rubbish game. What was I thinking trying to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Are fighters even better tanks than casters? Fighters get a little extra base HP. Casters get damage reduction, huge defense buffs, invisibility, healing polymorphs, I don't even know what else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Because apparently the only way a characters existence is valid is if there is a hard ironclad rule stating so. Remember, every encounter you have to stand toe to toe with all the monsters in the fight so if the "tank" can't "taunt" the monster will just one shot the caster. God, D&D is such a rubbish game. What was I thinking trying to defend it. Again, if a fighter cannot have any tools to entire monsters to attack him, why shouldn't the monsters just run past and gank the wizard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Because apparently the only way a characters existence is valid is if there is a hard ironclad rule stating so. Remember, every encounter you have to stand toe to toe with all the monsters in the fight so if the "tank" can't "taunt" the monster will just one shot the caster. God, D&D is such a rubbish game. What was I thinking trying to defend it. Again, you're conflating hard aggro mechanics with incentive-based mechanics, which is really, really silly. The actual beauty of 4E defender mechanics is not that they force monsters to do nothing but attack the defender, it's that they provide a mechanical incentive for attacking the defender and the creature marked still has a choice of which actions to take. It's bizarre that it took so long to arrive at a mechanical reason for fighters to actually act as the defenders they've always been, and it's even more bizarre that they abandoned it to revert back to the gentlemen's agreement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Because apparently the only way a characters existence is valid is if there is a hard ironclad rule stating so. Remember, every encounter you have to stand toe to toe with all the monsters in the fight so if the "tank" can't "taunt" the monster will just one shot the caster. God, D&D is such a rubbish game. What was I thinking trying to defend it. Yes, this an accurate and not at all hyperbolic framing of both the argument and the 4e mechanics people wish had been kept in the game. Nobody wants an 'ironclad' rule for everything; they want a thing that a Fighter can do to actually corral enemies and keep them off the Wizard once in a while. There's literally nothing in 5e that enables that - they get one OA per round, so it becomes increasingly irrelevant as they level, and they have nothing short of (I guess?) holding their action to really stop a cadre of monsters sailing past them to wail on the Wizard. By your own admission, this is something Fighters should be able to do, and something their players probably want to do - it's just that your stance is that 'clever play' will somehow enable this to happen. The thing that was fun about Defender mechanics is that it made being a burly guy with a shield who defends his friends from harm a fun thing you could do and do all the time. Do you also feel we don't need mechanics for the Rogue's sneak attack? After all, clever play would also allow you to do big damage from surprise. Why do we need a rule for that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Because apparently the only way a characters existence is valid is if there is a hard ironclad rule stating so. Remember, every encounter you have to stand toe to toe with all the monsters in the fight so if the "tank" can't "taunt" the monster will just one shot the caster. God, D&D is such a rubbish game. What was I thinking trying to defend it. I'm a fighter standing in a 10' wide passage. An enemy wants to run past me. According to the rules, when he does I get to attack him once, but I have literally no way to stop him rushing past if that hit doesn't kill him. Worse, I have no way other than that single possible hit to even penalise him as he rushes past. How do I apply skillful and wise play to this situation so that I, as a master of hand-to-hand combat, stop the enemy simply bypassing me? This is avoiding the whole question of what happens in the incredibly deep and rich tactical maneuver of "he rushes past me and so does his friend". Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I genuinely don't think there is a edition with 'hard tanking mechanics to force monsters to hit the character with the highest AC and HP.' Please do point one out if you know one. There's the Knight from 3.5, which coincidentally shows that traditional MMO tank mechanics are really dull when used in a tabletop RPG context. Bob Quixote posted:What's wrong with agreeing to reasonably run the encounters when setting out to run an elfgame? That's how it works in Dungeon World. The thing is, it works in Dungeon World because DW is light and peppy and fiction-focused. D&D... isn't. It might have been back in Gygax's day, but for as long as I've been reading D&D it's been big and heavy and mechanical. You can't leave such a big part of the game as this to just fiction in a game that's this mechanically-focused otherwise. If you do that, you end up with... well, this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm a fighter standing in a 10' wide passage. An enemy wants to run past me. According to the rules, when he does I get to attack him once, but I have literally no way to stop him rushing past if that hit doesn't kill him. Worse, I have no way other than that single possible hit to even penalise him as he rushes past. I am reasonably certain that you can use an opportunity attack to take the shove action, knocking them prone. Or the grapple action, setting their movement speed to zero. As a fighter you are [probably] proficient in Athletics which means you are rather likely to succeed on that check. Doubly so since you also probably have a high strength score. Obviously this breaks down if more than one or two enemies rush through the area though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It's an earnest question. If fighters should not be given any tools to entice enemies to attack him, then why shouldn't enemies just run past and gank the wizard? I want an actual answer. Well I was trying to make the point that there are lots of ways depending on the encounter since all the fights are dynamic, it's a game of imagination and story telling so the fight could be anything from flying in the air to a crowded market street, that it's easy to figure out a way to make a fighter the most compelling target in a battle without needing to resort to hard tanking mechanics, but we can't have a reasonable discussion about positioning, party make up, and encounter design because it's more fun to be sarcastic and fling around hyperboles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Because apparently the only way a characters existence is valid is if there is a hard ironclad rule stating so. Remember, every encounter you have to stand toe to toe with all the monsters in the fight so if the "tank" can't "taunt" the monster will just one shot the caster. God, D&D is such a rubbish game. What was I thinking trying to defend it. Why would it not? Assume an intelligent melee monster, say, a hobgoblin, ogre, or centaur or whatever, one which needs to get up close and personal to deal its best damage and attacks, and which hits AC. In the absence of mechanics to support tanking, taunting, defending, whatever you feel like calling it, the fighter having some way other than a gentleman's agreement to influence the monster's options... why wouldn't the monster run straight past the hard target and go kill the squishy guy? Doesn't have to be a wizard, though that's the obvious one. COuld be something more logical and earh-recognisable like an archer. Why would I try to stab the fighter in plate and shield when I could step past him taking a basically ignorable OA and go mince his buddy who's been peppering me with arrows since initiative started? Or to make the inverse argument: why does the WIZARD need MECHANICS to tell him how to cast spells? Remember, every encounter you have to USE COMPONENTS to FORCE MONSTERS TO MAKE SAVING THROWS in order to stop them from ganking your fighter buddy. God D&D is such a rubbish game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:that it's easy to figure out a way to make a fighter the most compelling target in a battle without needing to resort to hard tanking mechanics How. This is the third time I've asked you how. You're also changing your tune quite a bit - initially you said fighters should have no tools, now it's no "hard tanking mechanics." But there has never been an edition of D&D WITH "hard tanking mechanics," outside of the Knight class for 3.x. So which is it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
To be fair, you can get that fighting style where you can give disadvantage to attack one guy next to you... once per round... against a single attack. But it's a lazy mechanic so nobody takes it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Well I was trying to make the point that there are lots of ways depending on the encounter since all the fights are dynamic, it's a game of imagination and story telling so the fight could be anything from flying in the air to a crowded market street, that it's easy to figure out a way to make a fighter the most compelling target in a battle without needing to resort to hard tanking mechanics, but we can't have a reasonable discussion about positioning, party make up, and encounter design because it's more fun to be sarcastic and fling around hyperboles. A reasonable discussion about ways to make Fighters compelling targets would have to include some good examples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Waador posted:I am reasonably certain that you can use an opportunity attack to take the shove action, knocking them prone. Or the grapple action, setting their movement speed to zero. As a fighter you are [probably] proficient in Athletics which means you are rather likely to succeed on that check. Doubly so since you also probably have a high strength score. Obviously this breaks down if more than one or two enemies rush through the area though. I'm so glad that when I chose the character class described as having "unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat", my options for the difficult tactical situation of "stop a guy moving past me" expanded to what literally everyone else can do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm so glad that when I chose the character class described as having "unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat", my options for the difficult tactical situation of "stop a guy moving past me" expanded to what literally everyone else can do. In fairness a level five fighter with 18 strength will have a +7 to Athletics for this task, as opposed to a rogue or wizard who are more likely to have a +2 or +3 to the roll at most. Quite possibly a -1 depending on their build. So while it is true that your options are the same as what everyone else can do, you are at least twice as good as them at doing so. Possibly eight times better. Which is not a bad proxy for 'unparalleled mastery' in the task. There is probably some math to be done that proves out how many Monster Manual creatures have Athletics as a skill proficiency, to see how many things could reliably resist a fighter who decided they didn't get to move. I obviously haven't done that math but my gut says it feels like D&D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Why would it not? It depends. Is the archer standing out in the open in an empty field? Maybe running past the fighter wound be the best option for the hobgoblin. What if the archer is 200 yards away? Behind cover or out of sight? What if the archer is standing on a crumbling wall or on a small embankment? You keep making these really simple scenarios where, duh, best option is to run past the fighter and murder the archer but you sould not be in that situation where it's easy for the bad guy to midst run past the fighter. What's stupider: the hobgoblin hitting the fighter because he is "compelled" while the archer stands in the open pelts him with arrows from 30 feet away or the hobgoblin hitting the fighter because the finger is the easiest threat to deal with because the Archer is a pain in the rear end to reach/find/chase/etc? I wager you'll say the former and in the later a hard tanking mechanic isn't needed. Essentially compulsion tanking let's you do just that, stand there and mindlessly DPR in a situation that doesn't really make sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Again, if a fighter cannot have any tools to entire monsters to attack him, why shouldn't the monsters just run past and gank the wizard? Heck, it works the other way too. If I'm the Fighter in my group and there's an enemy caster in the back and the enemy meatshields have no way to actually stop me, then you're drat right I'll blow past those chumps and turn the wizard into paste. I'd be stupid not to. Guess the meatshields should have used their tools. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Reminder: 5e Paladins have Compel Duel, a spell which FORCES the targeted creature to only attack the casting Paladin. Why is this is okay, but it's not okay for a 4e defender to have a marking capability that still allows for the enemy to attack any target only at a disadvantage and with the possibility of retaliation/punishment? I feel like we go over this every time there's an argument about marking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:It depends. Is the archer standing out in the open in an empty field? Maybe running past the fighter wound be the best option for the hobgoblin. What if the archer is 200 yards away? Behind cover or out of sight? What if the archer is standing on a crumbling wall or on a small embankment? You keep making these really simple scenarios where, duh, best option is to run past the fighter and murder the archer but you sould not be in that situation where it's easy for the bad guy to midst run past the fighter. When has D&D ever had compulsion tanking? And what features does the 5e Fighter have that make it not a mindless DPR class?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:It depends. Is the archer standing out in the open in an empty field? Maybe running past the fighter wound be the best option for the hobgoblin. What if the archer is 200 yards away? Behind cover or out of sight? What if the archer is standing on a crumbling wall or on a small embankment? You keep making these really simple scenarios where, duh, best option is to run past the fighter and murder the archer but you sould not be in that situation where it's easy for the bad guy to midst run past the fighter. He's probably no more than a movement away, most likely inside the same room within the dungeon. After all, he's been peppering me with arrows since initiative started. You can mke a whole bunch of complex scenarios where yes, it would be sensible for the hobgoblin to try to kill the dude in plate. We're NOT IN ONE OF THOSE. We're in the situation where there's a 30 foot wide locked room with some furniture in it. It has 2 hobgoblins, a fighter, and an archer. This isn't exactly an unlikely scenario when dungeon crawling (ignoring the fact that there would be more PCs, I'm leaving them out more for brevity's sake than anything. So, in that situation, what causes the hobgoblins to attack the fighter not the archer? SwitchbladeKult posted:What's stupider: the hobgoblin hitting the fighter because he is "compelled" while the archer stands in the open pelts him with arrows from 30 feet away or the hobgoblin hitting the fighter because the finger is the easiest threat to deal with because the Archer is a pain in the rear end to reach/find/chase/etc? I wager you'll say the former and in the later a hard tanking mechanic isn't needed. Essentially compulsion tanking let's you do just that, stand there and mindlessly DPR in a situation that doesn't really make sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Solid Jake posted:Heck, it works the other way too. If I'm the Fighter in my group and there's an enemy caster in the back and the enemy meatshields have no way to actually stop me, then you're drat right I'll blow past those chumps and turn the wizard into paste. I'd be stupid not to. This is how actual 5e fights play out. Casters unload area-effect DPS for the round or two that they live. Even if tanks had perfect stickyness, a literal "you cannot move away from a conscious tank" aura, it would only increase the lethality of the game by allowing the casters to survive longer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:How. In my defense I'm trying to respond to multiple posts at once. I'm trying to refute the argument that D&D is poo poo because it lacks those tanking mechanics. I also never said fighters and other melee lacked any tools. I actually said the players need to use their tools and their wit and not rely on hard tanking mechanics like compulsion effects. Here is a good example of what I mean. Let's say you got a party that's a fighter, a rogue, a paladin, a ranger, and a wizard. They are fighting a hobgoblin. The hobgoblin could run past the melee but he'd take three AOOs, one being sneak attack, in order to attack the wizard once. He traded three extra attacks on himself to get one attack on the wizard. That's a really bad tactic! Now the wizard can just disengage or teleport away and the three melee that now surround him are going to get all their normal attacks now with advantage. In this scenario you don't need the fighter to have a way to force the hobgoblin to attack him. If it chooses to blindly run past everyone he'll give up a lot of damage and positioning. It would be better to ignore the wizard for now and try to knock one of the pesky melee out first. This is what I mean by hard tanking isn't nessisary for games like D&D. Edit: I never said D&D had compulsion/hard taking mechanics. I'm saying it doesn't need them. And yes I know mark in 4E wasn't a compulsion exactly but it's still a heavy handed. SwitchbladeKult fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:It depends. Is the archer standing out in the open in an empty field? Maybe running past the fighter wound be the best option for the hobgoblin. What if the archer is 200 yards away? Behind cover or out of sight? What if the archer is standing on a crumbling wall or on a small embankment? You keep making these really simple scenarios where, duh, best option is to run past the fighter and murder the archer but you sould not be in that situation where it's easy for the bad guy to midst run past the fighter. Your examples I can honestly say have never happened in a single game I've played. Is the archer carrying around a small embankment to stand on at any given time? quote:What's stupider: the hobgoblin hitting the fighter because he is "compelled" while the archer stands in the open pelts him with arrows from 30 feet away or the hobgoblin hitting the fighter because the finger is the easiest threat to deal with because the Archer is a pain in the rear end to reach/find/chase/etc? I wager you'll say the former and in the later a hard tanking mechanic isn't needed. Essentially compulsion tanking let's you do just that, stand there and mindlessly DPR in a situation that doesn't really make sense. D&D has never had compulsion tanking outside of one splat class in 3.x, and, apparently, the 5e paladin. I've told you this three times. Others, far more then that. How does a fighter ensure he is attacked when they have no tools to entice enemies to do so? What stops the hobgoblin from moving up to the archer and attacking them? Please answer that question. SwitchbladeKult posted:I'm trying to refute the argument that D&D is poo poo because it lacks those tanking mechanics. I also never said fighters and other melee lacked any tools. I actually said the players need to use their tools and their wit and not rely on hard tanking mechanics like compulsion effects. Hold it. Opportunity attacks are explicitly a mechanic/tool created to ensure fighters could hold enemies to attack them. You've stated numerous times that fighters do not require exactly that sort of tool. Are you now changing your mind and do you now agree that fighters DO need tools to keep enemy attention on them? ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:04
|
|