|
Mecha Gojira posted: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? Because it's a spell, and the word "spell" is immutable proof against all standards of game design, balance, fun, story, setting, and everything else under the sun.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted: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. Well done, you've managed to come up with another hypothetical scenario where the monster would be stupid to do anything other than hit one of the dudes he's in melee with. But why would he hit the fighter or the paladin rather than the more damaging and squishier (i.e. wearing leather armour rather than scale or plate and shield) rogue who just sneak attacked him in the kidneys? And what about the other 3 hobgoblins in the encounter. Why wouldn't THEY move away, and go gank the fucker who just fireballed them half to death? And regardless, try answering the question you're asked, instead of the strawman you're creating to avoid it. thespaceinvader fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
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. So you're just going to ignore anyone who asks what tools 5e gives them, or what compulsion tanking effects D&D has ever had?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
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. Why did the fighter run out 200 yards away from the archer to engage the hobgoblin? It seems like it would have been a lot smarter to just wait with the archer--behind cover and out of sight, or on a crumbling wall or on a small embankment--while he shot the hobgoblin with arrows until he died, or at least until he got close enough to endanger the archer, then the fighter could engage him to keep him from getting to the archer---oh, wait, I guess he can't do that. Better to leave cover and sprint across 200 yards of open field to fight him then, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
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. Nope, you can't do that. To shove or grapple you need to take the Attack action, but an opportunity attack is a special kind of reaction. (Both on page 195 of the PHB.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
There is a feat in pf to compel somebody to attack you, I need to go look it up. Edit: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/antagonize dirtycajun fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Wizards using spells above level 0 is dumb and lazy. If you are clever, you have the tools to get the enemies to do what you want using only prestidigitation and mage hand.
Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Hey, prestidigitation and mage hand are lazy mechanics, you should be doing it with the tools you get given not those lazy mechanics. Why no, I won't say what those tools are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Unrelated to current tanking discussion (p.s. fighters being tanks who have no way to actually tank is dumb), I really hope 5e repeats what 4e did where you could have like half a dozen different ways to be be a movie monster on the same character. I'm still sad I never got to play a vryloka warlock/vampire with Vampiric Heritage and the Werewolf theme, the Life-Stealer paragon path, the Archlich epic destiny, and whatever else delightfully dumb stuff I'm forgetting to add that would allow being half the Universal monster stable at once.
Roadie fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If you are clever, you have the tools to get the enemies to do what you want using only prestidigitation You really don't need anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
quote:"Get creative!" gently caress this mentality right in the rear end. It's not my goddamn job as the DM to come up with the right roll, skill check, attack roll,"spell-like" ability, whatever, to arbitrate an action as simple as "I want to not let the monster get past me" when the character is supposedly super-competent at being a melee combatant. I'm not the guy whose day job it was to figure out a way to let the player do that in a manner that's fair and consistent with what the rest of the players at the table are capable of via their own declarations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
In 5E the rogue would be harder to hit than the paladin to be honest. Cunning Action is amazing. In my scenario it's a single hobgoblin captain (cr 3) against a low level party. If it where a group of hobgoblins you'd use a different approach. I'm just trying to illustrate running past the melee to get to the caster isn't always the best option and that melee can be sticky without hard tanking mechanics. Right now my group is playing 5E. The party consists of a barbarian, a rogue, a cleric, a ranger (archery focused), and a warlock. We got attacked by a group of ghouls early on in a town. The cleric ran out into the square and got their attention while the others snuck by some near by houses. The warlock, knowing she would get swarmed if she engaged went into a church over looking the square and started casting spells through a window. Two ghouls peeled off the cleric but where unable to get in for a few rounds giving her a chance to cast a few more spells then escape. The barbarian ran in and engaged them at the door while the ranger started shooting from a near by roof. The rogue was busy running around distracting a few other gold until the barbarian could help engage them. We won the day, the cleric was tanky, the damage dealers didn't due, no hard tanking mechanics required. Edit: fixed typos, posting from my phone SwitchbladeKult fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:no hard tanking mechanics required. If the cleric used any defensive spells...guess what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:If the cleric used any defensive spells...guess what. A hard tanking mechanic is something that forces the enemy to engage the tank like a taunt or compulsion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Right now my group is playing 5E. The party consists of a barbarian, a rogue, a cleric, a ranger (archery focused), and a warlock. We got attacked by a group of ghouls early on in a town. The cleric ran out into the square and got their attention while the others snuck by some near by houses. The warlock, knowing she would get swarmed if she engaged went into a church over looking the square and started casting spells through a window. Two ghouls peeled off the cleric but where unable to get in for a few rounds giving her a chance to cast a few more spells then escape. The barbarian ran in and engaged them at the door while the ranger started shooring from a near by roof. The rogue was busy or running and distracting a few other gold until the barbarian could help engage them. We won the day, the cleric was tanky, the damage dealers didn't due, no hard tanking mechanics required. Yes, the Fighter from Basic D&D did in fact not need "hard tanking mechanics" because the party could always fall back to a 10-foot wide corridor that he could block all by himself, and if the party was ever in anything more open they had torchbearers and porters and squires and mercenaries and hirelings to take up the rest of the space. D&D has moved from that stage, though! SwitchbladeKult posted:A hard tanking mechanic is something that forces the enemy to engage the tank like a taunt or compulsion. At no point are monsters ever forced to attack the tank in any edition of D&D, outside of a few abilities that are not used to form the basis of a tanking character anyway. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:A hard tanking mechanic is something that forces the enemy to engage the tank like a taunt or compulsion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Nope, you can't do that. To shove or grapple you need to take the Attack action, but an opportunity attack is a special kind of reaction. (Both on page 195 of the PHB.) I'm not too sure that was the intent, but once again the rules weren't written very well and here we are. Remember the polearm reach discussion we all had a while ago? Here's one of the designers going in circles about it: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502520711395557376 https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502972149175287808
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:A hard tanking mechanic is something that forces the enemy to engage the tank like a taunt or compulsion. Look, you've done a nice job dancing around "4E IS WOW," but you're still being completely disingenuous. Marking does not force enemies to engage anyone. Marking provides a generic penalty to ignoring the defender, compounded by the defender's unique class abilities, but the marked enemy is still free to ignore the defender and engage whoever else it likes if the DM decides it's worth the risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I leave for a bit and this tanking discussion has gotten really dumb and really incorrect.  4e does not have a mechanic or ability that forces a monster to target a tank. This is old news, guys, come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yes, the Fighter from Basic D&D did in fact not need "hard tanking mechanics" because the party could always fall back to a 10-foot wide corridor that he could block all by himself, and if the party was ever in anything more open they had torchbearers and porters and squires and mercenaries and hirelings to take up the rest of the space. All I'm trying to do is demonstrate that there are reasonable ways in which you can prevent mobs from running past your tank to crush the wizard. Some times it's a pain in the dick to reach them or they have defenses besides AC or getting to the wizard would be tactical suicide. I'm actually shocked no one has jumped in with "roles like tank, healer, and damage dealer don't exist in D&D".
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:All I'm trying to do is demonstrate that there are reasonable ways in which you can prevent mobs from running past your tank to crush the wizard. Some times it's a pain in the dick to reach them or they have defenses besides AC or getting to the wizard would be tactical suicide. A martial class being a pain in the dick to get away from, a martial class having a defense besides AC and a martial class making it suicide to try to get to the Wizard are all things that need to be given to the martial class as an actual ability that they can declare they're doing. And they were given to martial classes in 4E, and they're not "hard tanking mechanics" by your definition of "the monsters are taunted or compelled to attack"
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Jesus G Gygax, how many times do I have to say I'm not claiming that D&D currently or at any time has or had hard tanking mechanics! I did not say Mark from 4E was a hard tanking mechanic! Mark, I think, is heavy handed and unnecessary but it is not a compulsion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Then who are you even trying to argue with? Nobody here wants MMO aggro pulling in their tabletop games. They just want melee classes to have something to fall back on besides the DM's charity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
quote:In our games the casters stand behind the wall of meat, take cover behind poo poo, cast defensive spells, fire from down the hall while the melee advance, etc. There are a ton of cool spells and abilities that let you teleport, fly, push monsters around or trap them, turn invisible, negate damage, etc! If you are playing a caster you should never leave yourself out in the open with a big "put an ax through my forehead" sign around your neck. If you make yourself easier to kill than the fighter you shouldn't be a caster. If you are doing everything reasonable to by a pain in the rear end to get to and the DM is still ignoring the melee to kill your character then you have a lovely DM and need to find a new game to play in. I think what he means to say is that caster supremacy will obviate the need for Fighters/tanks in the first place. Who needs Marking if the Wizard can fly, teleport and hurl save-or-dies at the hobgoblins while also being capable of conjuring up their own difficult terrain and obstacles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:All I'm trying to do is demonstrate that there are reasonable ways in which you can prevent mobs from running past your tank to crush the wizard. Some times it's a pain in the dick to reach them or they have defenses besides AC or getting to the wizard would be tactical suicide. All of your examples of ways that positioning can stop monsters without having to deal with mechanics can be solved by the monsters engaging in the duplicitous tactic of "stepping to the side, then walking forward."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
ritorix posted:I'm not too sure that was the intent, but once again the rules weren't written very well and here we are. They're pretty meticulous about what counts as an action, a bonus action, or a reaction. So I think this part at least is intentional. But yeah the rules aren't terribly clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Really Pants posted:Then who are you even trying to argue with? Nobody here wants MMO aggro pulling in their tabletop games. They just want melee classes to have something to fall back on besides the DM's charity. Apparently every other person that replies to this thread wants "MMO aggro pulling" because they keeping insisting that without hard tanking mechanics it's just so obvious that every fight the monsters are just going to run straight at the wizard. You know, because that's literally what happens when everyone actually plays the game and isn't bitching at each other on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Apparently every other person that replies to this thread wants "MMO aggro pulling" because they keeping insisting that without hard tanking mechanics it's just so obvious that every fight the monsters are just going to run straight at the wizard. You know, because that literally what happens when everyone actually plays the game and isn't bitching at each other on the Internet. ...no, no they're not. They're asking you how to do the things fighters are supposed to do without the tools to do them, occasionally reminding you that marks are not MMO aggro pulling. I think you're the only one conflating "tools" with "Must Be Like WoW."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Apparently every other person that replies to this thread wants "MMO aggro pulling" because they keeping insisting that without hard tanking mechanics it's just so obvious that every fight the monsters are just going to run straight at the wizard. You know, because that's literally what happens when everyone actually plays the game and isn't bitching at each other on the Internet. It is obvious that monsters should aim for the Wizard. The DM should be well within his rights to make the monsters try to go for the Wizard. The idea is that a Fighter should have abilities that make it unpalatable for the monsters to make such a beeline. The DM doesn't have to act dumb, and the Fighter gets to show off his competency and isn't sidelined. Win-win. Those abilities are not and do not have to be "MMO aggro pulling". They can be things like ... Marking, which you admitted isn't a "hard tanking mechanic". Or attacks of opportunity, which your players are either already using or are threatening to use in your current Next game. Or the Barbarian's Bear Totemic Attunement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Apparently every other person that replies to this thread wants "MMO aggro pulling" because they keeping insisting that without hard tanking mechanics it's just so obvious that every fight the monsters are just going to run straight at the wizard. You know, because that's literally what happens when everyone actually plays the game and isn't bitching at each other on the Internet. Actually they're saying the opposite of that, if you'd pay attention. Those of us arguing with you tend to like 4e's tanking mechanics and are arguing in favor of them over your suggestions, which have been pretty silly. Marking does not have to be 5e's tanking mechanic though, but they haven't thought of anything else in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Quick clarification question: does a Paladin get to use its Channel Divinity powers just whenever? Is there any limit on the number of times they may be used?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:Quick clarification question: does a Paladin get to use its Channel Divinity powers just whenever? Is there any limit on the number of times they may be used? 5e Paladins don't have Channel Divinity, I think. Do you mean 4e Paladins? Because there Channel Divinity is always an encounter power, regardless of class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Next Paladins do have Channel Divinity - they get it at level 3 and its effect differs depending on the Oath you choose to take. Checking the PHB, all of the uses of Channel Divinity across the various Oaths say "as an Action", so they're only on your turn, and they consume your (Normal) Action. The one exception is Vow of Enmity under Oath of Vengeance, which is listed as a Bonus Action. You can only use Channel Divinity (as one of your two options) once every Short Rest or Long Rest
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Next Paladins do have Channel Divinity - they get it at level 3 and its effect differs depending on the Oath you choose to take. Oh yeah, I only looked at the base class table. Woops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Seriously? This entire discussion about why monsters attack wizards first was painful enough then this. 5E/Next is drat fun. So was 4E, Pathfinder, 3E, and all the rest. And from this I can tell your wizards in D&D simply aren't that productive and you are being pandered to by the DM. First, defensive spells. If they aren't prebuffs and they aren't very solid control they are losses in the action economy - and action economy is king. Any time a wizard casts a defensive spell that isn't a swift action (or cutting off an entire column of reinforcements) they aren't attacking. Any time they aren't attacking they aren't contributing to the enemy losing. Which means they aren't pulling their weight. (Firing a crossbow or cantrip is just something to do). Standing behind the wall of meat simply doesn't work unless the meat wall is anchored at both sides in 3.X past about level 7 (i.e. you're in a dungeon or narrow streets). With the way full round attacks work you're best off moving past the fighter and eating the AoO to prevent the full round attack. If the PCs are outnumbered then the overlap can go after the wizard (again eating the AoO if necessary). 5E has a more minor version of the same problem - without defence in depth it's often smart for the monsters to eat the AoOs, so the only solid meat wall is anchored at both ends. This incidentally was not the case in AD&D where the attacks of opportunity were devastating. Or in 4e. It's a 3e and 5e issue. But even in 3e and 5e the problem is nothing like as severe in cramped dungeons. Standard invisibility vanishes after the first offensive spell (my current high level PF PC is a Summoner - I can more than pull my weight without losing Invisibility) and Greater Invisibility loses on the action economy if cast in combat. Flight is also painting a large target on yourself if the enemy has anything ranged (my summoner flies 2" off the ground most of the time). And there is incredibly little forced movement. Which means that unless you are always operating from ambush, your best spells are normally Save or Suck (generally AoE Save or Suck for the greatest leverage on the action economy). In other words even under your claims the best defence for a wizard is a good enough offence to make it trivially easy for the fighters backed by a few long duration buffs. (And everyone tries to take cover with wizards). Edit: And my current Summoner wears pretty obvious armour to try to pretend to not be a wizard-type until it's too late. One of the first investments for most of my wizards is a Hat of Disguise for much the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Frank Mentzer solved the whole geek the mage thing by having you declare your intent before you rolled initiative. If you declared before the monsters, you got a bonus. No other mechanics needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
SwitchbladeKult posted:Jesus G Gygax, how many times do I have to say I'm not claiming that D&D currently or at any time has or had hard tanking mechanics! I did not say Mark from 4E was a hard tanking mechanic! Mark, I think, is heavy handed and unnecessary but it is not a compulsion. SwitchbladeKult posted:Apparently every other person that replies to this thread wants "MMO aggro pulling" because they keeping insisting that without hard tanking mechanics it's just so obvious that every fight the monsters are just going to run straight at the wizard. You know, because that's literally what happens when everyone actually plays the game and isn't bitching at each other on the Internet. I suggest you stop posting in this thread before someone buys you a red title. I'm not trying to be mean or saying  I'm saying that the purpose of this thread is for people to bitch at each other on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I suggest you stop posting in this thread before someone buys you a red title. I'm not trying to be mean or saying Oh no not a red title
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Frank Mentzer solved the whole geek the mage thing by having you declare your intent before you rolled initiative. If you declared before the monsters, you got a bonus. No other mechanics needed. What rule is this, specifically? I checked my Basic books and couldn't find anything except your d6 initiative roll gets modified by your DEX if the group uses individual instead of group initiative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Frank Mentzer solved the whole geek the mage thing by having you declare your intent before you rolled initiative. If you declared before the monsters, you got a bonus. No other mechanics needed. I'm not too familiar with Mantzer D&D - what kind of bonus did you get? Also, what exactly does 'declare before the monsters' mean - like, you said your thing out loud before the DM did?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:16
|
|
