From the WotC Boards: Mearls on 'Aggro'

[M.L. Martin]

This got posted at the WotC boards yesterday, and I thought it might alleviate some concerns around here. Here's the link if anyone wants the full context.

Aggro in D&D is a big issue. In early drafts, there were much more explicit rules for it, where monsters had to attack the fighter or paladin or a creature's tactics dictated that it attack the nearest foe. All that stuff is gone.

First, it isn't fun playing the guy whose job it is to get beaten up. In early playtests, the fighter soaked up all the attacks and then.... soaked up some more attacks. It was the cleric problem, but even worse. At least the cleric doesn't take damage for spending all his spells healing other people. So, those mechanics went right out the window.

Second, it restricts DMs needlessly. We don't want to tell DMs, "You have to do this." It's pretty lame to force DMs to walk through a monster script. It might be interesting for a specific monster (the clockwork knight programmed with three specific routines) or encounter (the zombies in the temple of Orcus attack good clerics above all other targets), but not as a core rule.

Third, we want playing a fighter or similar class to be fun, and we think we have mechanics that make it fun to sit in front of the party and hold back the monsters while beating on their asses.

The paladin does resemble the knight, but (we hope) that the paladin's use of the knight's toys solves the problem some people had with the knight. Namely, that the knight's compulsion felt like a magical effect, but didn't use magic. In the paladin's case, he's doing something similar with his mastery of divine magic. However, his ability does not say that the monster must attack him. It makes it a better option, but doesn't eliminate other options.

The fighter is just nasty. In design, we figured that people who play fighters do so because they want to kick the crap out of monsters. If you're next to a fighter, and you take your eye off him to deal with someone else, you aren't going to be happy. We hope that this sort of mechanic leads to good teamwork (the fighter holds down the hill giant) while also speaking to why people play the class (the fighter player gets to have fun beating down the hill giant).

There are no mechanics that compel the monster to attack anyone (well, a specific spell might do that, but we already have that in D&D). We want DMs to make NPC fighters and paladins, and it would be really dumb if the DM had to impose a threat or aggro mechanic that dictated who the PCs had to attack.

 

[Gloombunny]

It's little dismaying to hear that they were actually trying out an aggro system at all, but they did finally scrap it, so that's good. Interesting that even the paladin's magic doesn't force someone to attack him. Sounds more like Iron Guard's Glare than knight's challenge.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For everyone concerned that 4E is too much like MMORPGs, this is Mearls explicitly saying they've rejected an MMORPG mechanic, because it sucked in D&D.

I do think that newbie DMs likely have a bit of trouble figuring out who a monster will attack. Heck, my players don't always seem to get that most monsters IMC tend to attack the guy who hurt them, instead of the well-armored guy beside him who can't hit the broad side of a barn.

This should be addressed through DMing advice and good example combats, though, and not through computer game-style AI.

 

[Gloombunny]

If you're next to a fighter, and you take your eye off him to deal with someone else, you aren't going to be happy.

This reminds me of... I can't remember the name, some feat from PHB2, I think. It gives a +4 bonus to attack rolls if your target spent their last turn next to you without moving away or targeting you with an attack or ability. I wonder if something like that will be integrated into the 4e fighter.

 

[Kurotowa]

This reminds me of... I can't remember the name, some feat from PHB2, I think. It gives a +4 bonus to attack rolls if your target spent their last turn next to you without moving away or targeting you with an attack or ability. I wonder if something like that will be integrated into the 4e fighter.

Agreed. It sounds to me like Fighters get bonuses and free attack in order to bring the pain if you ignore them, and Paladins use the Crusader tricks of inflicting penalties if you pick a different target. If so, it's a nice contrast of styles as defenders.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, I'm actually pretty happy that they test drove aggro mechanics. Let's face it, aggro mechanics work pretty well in MMORPG's and the idea is fairly sound. Certainly better than rolling a random die to see who gets attacked (which I've seen in more than one group), or automatically attacking the weakest looking target and killing the wizard all the time.

It is a neat set of mechanics for determining who gets attacked. Unfortunately, the situation in MMORPG's and RPG's is different, so the mechanics aren't really portable.

But, I'm much happier knowing that they tried this, and presumably a number of other ideas, before settling on whatever they've settled upon. Shows that they're willing to try anything and use what works best, and not simply use what worked (or sort of worked) in the past.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Y'know, I'm actually pretty happy that they test drove aggro mechanics. Let's face it, aggro mechanics work pretty well in MMORPG's and the idea is fairly sound. Certainly better than rolling a random die to see who gets attacked (which I've seen in more than one group), or automatically attacking the weakest looking target and killing the wizard all the time.

It is a neat set of mechanics for determining who gets attacked. Unfortunately, the situation in MMORPG's and RPG's is different, so the mechanics aren't really portable.

But, I'm much happier knowing that they tried this, and presumably a number of other ideas, before settling on whatever they've settled upon. Shows that they're willing to try anything and use what works best, and not simply use what worked (or sort of worked) in the past.

Exactly my thoughts, expressed more clearly than I can at this point in the work week.

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

Certainly better than rolling a random die to see who gets attacked (which I've seen in more than one group), or automatically attacking the weakest looking target and killing the wizard all the time.

The ideal is an intelligent DM who's intelligent enough to separate his intelligence from the intelligence of his monsters.

Did I say that right?

If I'm DMing a group of dumb-as-posts monsters, they're going to focus right on the huge man chopping at their necks with the big sharp thing. If there are deadly arrows and magic spells blasting them from outside the melee, they're just going to assume it's another weapon the huge man is using. The smarter monsters will be able to adapt to such situations a bit better and answer them by, say, promptly gutting the wizard. If it's the frikkin-god-what-is-that from the Far Realms, I might use a dice roll to simulate its mindset.

Some DM's, unfortunately, won't make those distinctions. They'll have the best strategy in their own minds and assume the trolls can't do any worse. I certainly don't think rules-adjudicating that sort of thing is the answer. But there should be some advice for role-playing the monsters' intelligence.

 

[Gloombunny]

Let's face it, aggro mechanics work pretty well in MMORPG's and the idea is fairly sound.

This is... debatable. At best.

 

[Driddle]

For everyone concerned that 4E is too much like MMORPGs, this is Mearls explicitly saying they've rejected an MMORPG mechanic...

You must have missed how he used the term "aggro," then. AND felt the need to test the game mechanic at all.

That wouldn't have happened if MMORPGs hadn't already gotten into his brain. The damage is already done.