How to fix agro management

Why you all hating? This is a discussion thread. If you are unable to do that then leave. We want to find the best way to do this and want to discuss with others how they might work it out.

Armor is a solution to one problem but it has disadvantages in other areas. It's situational just like everything else.

Moron. What kinda tank has no armor and shield? The whole point of the tank is to protect high dmg characters like wizzards and rogue's.

But the whole idea behind it is that we are using it to solve that one solution. Let the wizzard Solve the rest.

So the paladin just stays at home for all the adventures that don't require set-piece combat in an enclosed space? Ooookay.

Thank you. I know that the Veeky Forumstard's instinct is to ravenously tow the party line, but please at a minimum explain why you this this is bad rather than saying vague things like "don't add abstract systems on".

I should mention that this isn't for me, since I am forever DM, but rather for my players.

That said I will contribute my observations. Intimidate or Bluff seem like somewhat decent vehicles for drawing aggro, but the problem is that it doesn't work on certain enemies, such as those immune to fear effects ( for intimidate) or mindless enemies ( for bluff)

In the ToB area, White Raven combined with Devoted Spirit gave you unparalleled battlefield control. Iron Guard Glare is a particularly delicious stance.

It's bad because (1) it's a blatant gimmick that doesn't make any practical sense as to how it would work, (2) it's inferior both on paper and in thematics to using tactics that do make real-world sense, (3) it's another push toward overspecializing martials which already overspecialize far too much as it is and end up gimping themselves, (4) nobody in-setting would ever actually want to do this because getting wounded is bad for you, (5) it conceptually opposes the martial damage-dealing that is supposed to put enemies out of the fight and thus prevent them from damaging anyone, (6) it has a terrible feel to it because it comed from games that we don't like.
Are six reasons enough for you?

You know full well that they wont be enough no matter what you say.

No, the wizard solves any problem that doesn't require absorbing hits without being hurt. Which wizards can actually do too, but muh spotlight sharing.

>Torian !!BgSAPhGzI9z

Filtered. :^)

>All of those goblins and orcs that attack the wizard first, because he's the dangerous one.
>Even though he looks like some old dumbass in a robe.
>Completely ignores the full plate fighter that's up in their face.
>This makes perfect sense?

Your readons are shit. it makes simple since. You kill it while I stop you from dieing

It makes fine since on paper and works well in practice. And in the real world men wore full plate and used shields all the damn time. In more modern war the Fucking tank will draw a lot of attention and take a lot of hits while ground units kill off hte enemy.

Its called mechanics.

I enjoy being the tank. And getting wounded means shit to a paladin with a cleric in the party.

It adds to the idea of combat. I take the hits while barbarian kills it.

That's 100% your own opinion and I and most people disagree with you.

Okay. Stealth mission, level 5. The rogue has Stealth training, nobody else does. How many spell slots does the wizard burn on Invisibility for everyone else to prevent a TPK and how many does he use for every other problem that he supposedly has to solve by himself with his spell slots that he may or may not even have an appropriate spell for or even be able to see coming?

>That nerd in the robes just stopped time and now he's flying
>Hey guys I think he might be one of those wizards we should probably focus on him.

Plus, once you reach a certain CR, it's not a stretch assuming most sapient monsters could recognize a wizard or cleric

Why the fuck is a diverse party going on a stealth mission? That's dumb.

A raid of high level orcs is charging you in melee combat. The mage got one shot the rogue looks fucked. What do you do.

How much healing can the cleric keep pouring on before exhaustion? Why would the enemies not attack the cleric instead? Why not the barbarian? What if you have to ford a river or cross a desert in order to even get to the fight? I get that you are having fun right now in your limited, relatively safe little box where nothing is a real challenge for you and all the opponents play by ninja-B-movie rules, but you shouldn't expect that to be typical of D&D in any way shape or form.

I think breaking it into mechanics or putting numbers to it is stupid, but the idea that some threats are more obvious or seem more pertinent in the moment--or that a character can try to demand that sort of attention--is a valid one.

Ultimately it's a RP interaction mid-combat. Want to get the attention of a wolf? Be taller, louder, postured more aggressively. Want to get the attention of an archer? Figure out what makes you a prime target, do that.

But having a discrete 'generates more aggro' sort of system is shite for the same reason ignoring the combat priorities of NPCs, opponents, and monsters is shite. It's limiting the game, limiting the setting, and limiting the players.

Who said anything about stopping time or flying?
Who said anything about having even cast spells?
Who said anything about higher CR, when only first level cannon fodder was mentioned?

Come up with an actual fucking answer.

>A raid of high level orcs is charging you in melee combat. The mage got one shot the rogue looks fucked. What do you do.
Probably either GTFO or attempt to surrender. We clearly made a very serious mistake somewhere along the line, and it's time to cut our losses and try for whatever compromise outcome we can pull out of our ass.

Thats why we need agro control scrub. And there is an armor set that can do just that

Why isn't the cleric or the barbarian "tanking". Barring early level shaningans both are better equipped for taking damage than a paladin.

How are either at low level better for it? And I never said they couldn't BE the tank.
Barbarian doesn't have DR till later. Cleric is basically a paladin.

How would aggro control even help if you've been ambushed and most likely pinned in and surrounded? And if you weren't ambushed, why are we even in this situation?

Also, why wasn't the rogue doing his job and scouting ahead to find the enemy? Why didn't the mage have a fireball or web ready for them? Why aren't we the ones with a surprise round? You can really blame anyone in the party and it'd be just as accurate.

The paladin with lay on hands who can take more and avoid most damage gets he ambush to attack him. The wizzard barbarian and rogue kill off the ambushers while the paladin keeps himself up dealing as much damage as he can with his one hander and shield.

>The paladin with lay on hands who can take more and avoid most damage gets he ambush to attack him
But WHY would he be the prime target of a surprise attack if he's the hardest target? Why don't the orcs run in, knock the squishies down, and retreat so the paladin will chase after them and run into the punji sticks? Why do you assume that no enemy you will ever face has above animal intelligence?

That'd why we are discussing agro control....... that's the entire point of the thread.....
If we didn't see it coming then I sure hope our tank can grab all that aggression.

If the tank can't tank then a tank don't work. Much like a caster cant cast then he don't work.

Why would the paladin give chase? He would stay on the party's dead bodies and try to save them

>but you shouldn't expect that to be typical of D&D in any way shape or form.

This I think is the crux of the issue.

D&D is not build around "aggro mechanics" becasue aggro mechancis don't work in anything which isn't a video game. At most--at fucking most--certain classes could potentially have an ability which convinces an opponent to attack them for X number of rounds. But even that could lose out to a good Will save.

D&D, especially 3.PF, is not built around tactics which rely on hitting one of 10 keys on the number bar.

Forcing MMO tactics like aggro makes as much sense as forcing spells per day into WoW.

It's called the Knight.

>I'm closed minded and don't wana think of an answer

Why you in this thread? And it is possible I have experience at doing it it works fine and all I had was a chest plate of insults. Maby if you stopped being a bitch you could open your mind to more then one game of of only 3.5 limited imagination edition.

Like i just said a few posts above... if he's ambushed, he'll have no chance to use any aggro-drawing mechanics, and if he's not ambushed, he shouldn't be pressing the fight against a stronger opponent. Giving him aggro draw would do nothing.
Okay.... for how long? Until he runs out of food and water and collapses from exhaustion? Will he just stand there and repeatedly heal them only to watch them det plonked by arrows and rocks out of the darkness again and again? What about the damage that he'll be taking himself, since anything can still hit on a nat. 20? Will he try to drag them out of the dungeon, and how can he do this safely?
I'm not a harsh DM, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't last very long in anything I ran unless you were willing to wise up and expand your box of available options outside of merely the things your character has listed as bonuses on his sheet or took feats for.

Your pushing this to the point of ROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES. if everyone literally died in turn one then fuck nigger there is no turn two to discuss. That's like saying wizzards are the weakest class at lvl 20+ cuz if they die before they can cast a spell then they can't cast a spell.

I wouldn't wana play in campaign with you as DM. "I disagree with you opinion" rocks fall everyone dies. Like fuck you you shit DM.

But the situation I was presented with actually said that we start out with one character dropped and another one badly hurt. I didn't write that.

Oh boy, it's good to see OP is looking for innovative ways to make a faggot game even worse.

Okay, so after reviewing this thread, a lot of the sentiment seems to be that players only want to bring one hammer in their toolbox so they can whine when they get handed the occasional screw instead of the expected nail. Hrrr. I don't think I want to DM for you any more than you want me to be your DM. Go have your fun your way and I'll have my fun my way.

>Aggro mechanics should not be a thing. No. Just no. Learn some actual tactics instead of trying to inject a bunch more abstract gamey bullshit into a system

One billion times this.

Then come up with your own system, asshole. Your idea is awful, and you know it.

The reason it started like that was a like of agro control. In the situation I presented it wasn't am ambush or was a very bad ambush. It was a simple orcs charging

I honestly can't find a reason the "for" side in this thread is giving other than "I want MMO tanking because I liked tanking in WoW" or a very flimsy "well in IRL tactics prioritizing the most visibly intimidating target makes sense".

But the latter doesn't work since D&D parties focus caster and healer enemies all the time. If aggro works on monsters it should work on PCs as well

I thank you for giving a reasoned answer.

To answer everyone who's bringing up why monsters wouldn't ignore wizards in favor of a heavily armored individual, let me put it plainly.

Of the two choices stated above, one is doing large amounts of damage and or disrupting the battlefield (as the examples keep suggesting) versus a heavily armored individual who might do a fraction of said damage. The one that is doing more damage is going to draw more ire from the enemies, it's simple logic.

>let's make this terrible system more like a MMORPG
This is the best thread.

>In the situation I presented it wasn't am ambush or was a very bad ambush. It was a simple orcs charging
Charging out of where? In what terrain? How many rounds did the party know about them and have time to prepare? Lack of context is making this situation meaningless.
The salt is strong with this one!

>Ultimately it's a RP interaction mid-combat. Want to get the attention of a wolf? Be taller, louder, postured more aggressively. Want to get the attention of an archer? Figure out what makes you a prime target, do that.

And this was the stab of my comment about using bluff or intimidate, which I have yet to hear a response to.

Both of you tank wrong. It's not about taking less damage, it's about being able to take more. AC increases your survivability less than DR and HP.

>And this was the stab of my comment about using bluff or intimidate, which I have yet to hear a response to.
I wouldn't have any issue with that if it took a standard action like any other during-initiative use of those skills, wasn't an automatic success, and had some other limitations.

There are a lot of niggers in this thread going on about how they don't like the topic of discussion in this thread and how they don't want to make the topic work.

WHY ARE YOU IN YHE THREAD?

Really if you don't like the topic and don't wana discuss it then leave. How about you go to a fresh porn thread and tell them how sick that shit is? Or go in a character art thread and tell them they are dumb and spam memes. Really niggas just get out of the thread you won't be missed.

I think the armor works, but that guy talking about using intimidate and diplomacy is my personal fav way to draw agro.

Sometimes is just a simple one nigga on the weakest party member and you could take more.

I'll use the example that seems to be bandied about. In the example of an ambush where everyone is caught unawares, it would be nice to have an option to (ideally using the current mechanics) have one person draw the attention of all of the enemies while everyone else gets their shit together.

As an example from the session I ran last night, the players ran into a few enemies that did high single-target damage. One of the players (a swashbucker), had a high AC and CMD (for their level). He wanted to be the focus, so he got right up in the enemies' faces and went to town with his sword. He did a good chunk of damage. Then the half giant took her turn and absolutely pulped the other enemy with her mace. At this point, despite all the intent of the swashbuckler, the half giant became the much bigger threat. As a result, she nearly died, and would have if not for a once-per-day ability to reroll a save.

The half giant was not power gamed and the team was using sound tactics, but because of two lucky crits, the half giant killed an on CR enemy in one turn. In cases where massive damage occurs (especially with quadratic casters) it would be nice to have some recourse to keep focus on the person you want it on.

I have no doubt that some would say things like "don't get into melee then" or "play a different character", but the entire point of my existence as a DM is to make sure that my players have fun. If they all want to be melee people, who am I to tell them no?

A huge part of discussion threads is accepting not everyone will like your ideas. And those people will explain themselves. Ideas do not get immunity just because the OP doesn't want criticism

Don't come to Veeky Forums if you wanna feel validated. Write a blog and delete any comments you don't like if you just want positive feedback

you need to be told what a faggot you are

if cancer isn't actively opposed, it festers in shitty threads like this

If you aren't able to handle people who think that your ideas are bad, why are you on Veeky Forums? If you want to talk about whatever stupid thing you can think up with people who will never criticize you or tell you that your idea is bad, go to Facebook or something.

Aggro is a shit mechanic in TTRPGs because it's a mechanic designed for video game number crunching. It's just as bad as if you suggested that the players be able to "save," do something, and then "reload" if they didn't like the result.

No nigger you misunderstood . You see there is a difference between discussion and bitching. Y'all is just bitching. Your entire reason and only reason for your opinion is "i don't like it"
It's not about positive or negative comments it's about pointless ones. Go to /B/ and post bananas

It's Bout you all just shitposting. Your the cancer. Look at what we are discussing. Not agro. We are discussing you leaving and your bitching about but hurts.

First off that's not me, in case you notice I have a ## in my name. Second off, I don't care about people disagreeing. Disagreeing people tend to give reasons why they don't like something, which furthers discussion. Trolls on the other hand, tend to just spout hate without any real reason given other than their own biases.

I started this thread in the hopes that someone else had thought the same thing I did and had already found something (such as the armor people mentioned). In the absence of such, I was hoping for some intelligent discussion with people who have high system mastery.

Damn OP. Put those niggas in place.

Back on topic, I was thinking of tweaking either bluff or intimidate slightly to allow for influencing enemies to see you as a larger threat, possibly setting DCs along the same lines as the Diplomacy DCs to increase opinion.

That would work best with using skills.

Again, what it sounds like is you want to handhold players through situational encounters which are difficult by virtue of mechanics. Retroactively applying MMzo style aggro to 3.PF in the way you seem to want trivializes combat to little more than tank and spank. This works in vidya because vidya is designed around that. Pathfinder is not. It relegated everyone to neat little roles and makes combat repetitive and boring.

If you really, really must have aggro as a hardwired part of the game I'd suggest a different system which is less complex.

Id suggest Savage Worlds. It has a fantasy supplement designed entirely around D&D style games. And you can make up your own spells so giving that ability is a lot easier

4e did it right with its Marking system. Making the marked enemy make a decision between a couple of bad choices, either attacking the defender or getting walloped by said defender. But no, that was "Babby WoW shite."

to be honest it would make sense as an ability for paladins. a kind of magical challenge that says "you and me knave, single combat, now."

Congratulations, you made a thread on Veeky Forums and got a result you didn't anticipate. I guess this is your first day or something. See the rules here are that if you post stupid bullshit, you get made fun of and people discuss whatever they want, provided that it's board related. You posted some video game bullshit that is pretty much antithetical to the fucking purpose of roleplaying. Now we get to tell you that it's fucking stupid, and you get to do absolutely nothing about it. If you want "intelligent discussion," then you should pull your head out of your ass and talk to the people replying to your thread with their ideas and opinions in earnest. If you want people to tell you nothing except that which you want to hear, either talk to a mirror or this monkey.
Have a nice day.

You could have a % based agro system with intimidate/diplomacy adding to the % you have and at 100% you have full agro. So rolling an 8 plus 4char means you start turn one with 12% agro. You could even make them roll % based will save on it.

You could work damage into it so the agro has control mechanics to it.

itt: op can't handle criticism of his shitty idea and goes full monkey on everyone

>I guess it's your first day or something

Well he IS tripping. For some reason

Ye that's good idea. Adds a nice smooth lvl to combat

Don't forget the other guy crying about how orcs running up to to pummel the mage and then running away again is a Rocks Fall Everyone Dies unwinnable situation,

Nah, OP is just acting smug and going on about "muh intelligent conversations"

But he's developed some kind of echo chamber in this thread who just shout down everyone disagreeing and call them all shitposters. Something about "just come up with an answer other than 'I don't like it' lol". While providing no real justification for aggro beyond "well I like it".

OP at least provided a reason for wanting aggro (), though I still hold it's incredibly flimsy and handhold-y.

I'd like more of an RP element to it. Based on shit talking. That's what my party seems to do. If the DM feels our shit talk is good or funny it usually works. Saved our rogue once doing it. Bandit was hiding and shot him. Was probably gana go for another that would have at least knocked him out so I called him a piss drinker. And threw my sword at him. Wasn't my smartest move but it worked. I got agro while our ranger shot him down

>Aggro mechanics

How about just making the Martials Dangerous enough to not be ignored.

I mean really, just fix the fucking grappling and tripping mechanics and we can have mighty warriors smashing the wings of the dragon and wrestling them to the ground, engaging with them tooth and claw to bide time for their wizard.

any suggestions on how to do that?

This is pretty much what OP wants. Why not take the 5e version of marking targets and port it back to 3.5/PF?

This is honestly my preferred method of "aggro". A hardwired mechanic is just so...boring.

I'd rather play a rogue and see the enemy bee line me for snarking at him than sit and watch Sir Orderios de NoFun press the 9 button on his keyboard and activate his taunt.

Easiest way is to simply remove the limits on Sizes.

Strength score is strength score.

If a Halfling is strength 20, he's fucking strength 20, maybe he's some genetic quirk, maybe reality merely decided to play a joke on itself.

But when that charging Ogre tries to crush him, that strength 20 halfling knock him the fuck down and gets him in the camel clutch and makes him humble.

There's a difference between constructive criticism and hate posts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_criticism

I welcome the former. The latter are unhelpful.

To the people against aggro mechanics,

How do you deal with squishy wizards? If there is a smart and strong enemy the wizard could potentially die in one shot. And with the way turns work, I can't see any way to stop someone from just attacking the wizards.

do you have a link to that? I am very interested in that.

This best part is this should totally be in the purview of anyone who's an adventurer. Regardless of race.

Merry and Pippin each killed a troll during the battle at the Black Gate.

All this should be the good post. I treid to find the most useful ones. Glad to see your all of boring the trolls. Keep the good stuff coming.

Merry and Pippin were undisputedly awesome.

Exactly.

I actually do run what I like to call "Unbound" grapple push and pull mechanics.

There are penalties or harder rolls when something is larger, but it's like any other test.

I consider it a success because my players Dwarven Barbarian German Suplexed a Bullete to get it out of the ground.

I found something similar to the Knight's Challenge in the PF Cavalier. It's single target though. Anyone know of a way to extend it to more than one target?

By standing in their way? Moving past you is going to let you get a few hits in, hell if you're really desperate you could try tackling the guy. Literally, think how you'd stop a crazed rapist from making a bee-line to your wife, then do that. That's how "tanking" works outside of a video game

>I welcome the former. The latter are unhelpful
>actually linking the "Constructive Criticism" wikipedia page

Jesus OP could you be any more fucking arrogant?

I'm gonna give you some "constructive criticism" right here: don't bitch about "hate posts" on Veeky Forums. Especially since most of what you're calling hate in this thread is just people criticizing your idea in a way which isn't to your taste.

If you want your narrow definition of "intellectual discussion" you're in the wrong place. You're complaining there are too many ducks at the duck pond.

Personally, I still maintain your idea is a bad one. Mostly because you started off this thread with "3.PF *needs* MMO-style aggro mechanics". Which it really doesn't for a variety of reasons presented here, the most important being they were never a major design consideration and the game's overall mechanics do not accommodate it in any workable way. At least no where near where you want it. And so far your only real reason for why the game needs it is a situational context where a player who should usually avoid getting hit wound up getting hit. Which again, that's part of the game's mechanics.

Order of the Shield looks pretty sweet.

>it's simple logic.
If you ever left your basement you'd know people don't work like that, particularly in stressful situations.

So if you use magic weapons with souls inside them could you have a weapon draw agro for you? And make a tank based on what he hits or wants to fighting using gear?

Maby if you have tanking based on people attacking the biggest and most threatening looking guy? (Barbarian or full plate fighter) and make that how NPCs think. Maby make wizzards not be known as THE threat in your realm.

>Personally, I still maintain your idea is a bad one. Mostly because you started off this thread with "3.PF *needs* MMO-style aggro mechanics". Which it really doesn't for a variety of reasons presented here, the most important being they were never a major design consideration and the game's overall mechanics do not accommodate it in any workable way. At least no where near where you want it. And so far your only real reason for why the game needs it is a situational context where a player who should usually avoid getting hit wound up getting hit. Which again, that's part of the game's mechanics.

thank you for your reasoned response. While I admit that it is a fringe case, and more than 90% of the time it won't come up, I would still like to explore this for two reasons.The first is that one of my players would like to try pulling focus as his main purpose in combat, and therefore I would like to know what his/my options are (if any). The second is that in that fringe case I would like to know if there are options when my players ask "can I do ____". Well, those kind of blend together, but I hope you get what I'm saying. If there is not mechanical way for this to happen, and making one would require a rewrite of the entire system, then I guess that's my answer.