Originally posted by tro44_1 Thats because WoW uses the HT concept, and is a branch from the DnD TT (damn even WoW has a DnD RPG TT game). The concept still follows. As I explained before. Leaders are normally Armored in RPG (DnD the Cleric and Warloard for example) in WoW, the leaders are Paladins and Knights (for Alliance), and they Protect the weak and others [Role Playing wise]. This Protection fits the Idea of Tanking as well. Also Like I said above. Killing the Leaders is a tactical plan. an in these cases, the Leaders are up front Meleeing you. Also with Taunts being thrown out their mouth(or what ever hole on their body), that causes even more hatred towards the leader in emotional ways.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
in my mind the best system is one that i picture from the Felix and Gotrex books.
Both Felix and Gotrek basically beat the living crap out of everything quickly and before they can hit them. Those that they don't kill quickly require blocks/parries (active block mechanic?) and those that manage to get by (very few) either (with luck) only graze them (slowing them down but not killing them) or severelly injuring them.
Such a system relies much more on active blocking and parrying (as most of the time you would either miss or be blocked or parried...much like in real combat) and keeps the BBEG relativelly the same (the Dragon isn't going to dodge much but his scales and size make up for it with armour and lots of HP).
Such a system in my mind is much better, there are still heals, dps and tanks but there is less of a focus on those specific roles
e.g
Archer: Doesn't need much armour as he isnt going toe to toe, really good damage (arrows freaken hurt) but he misses quite a bit (it's hard to aim a bow in combat). If needed hes able to dodge well enough to avoid most missile shots from the Dragon
Warrior/tank: The Armour is there to make up for his slow dodge, He uses his big ass sword and/or shield to parry/block most attacks (most of his attention is focussed on his block timings as one slip will be painful but not fatal like the other guys). He doesn't need to do much damage as his main focus is to be in the beats face trying to get a killing blow
Rogue: Better armour than the archer, has very very good dodge and if against blades, a decent parry (not so good against a dragon tail or claw). His main job is basically dodging any attacks aimed at him (few if he does his job well) and positioning himself in a decent spot for a nice blind spot attack. He doesn't specifically do more damage than the tank but his positioning and his quickness allow for more painful and quicker attacks (if hes lucky).
Wizard/healer: Tossing a few magic attacks here and there to see which one will hurt the beast. His defence is mostly magical (so he doesn't need armour or dodge) and need to work on shifting his magic from defences to his offensive spells (like the block system). Heal wise he can toss a few small heals on the tank if he misses a few blocks but most of his attention will be on taking down the dragon. After the fight he can heal more than just wounds such as helping the others regain their energy or calming them down.
To me this system has enough of the old elements to be somewhat familiar while improving upon the lame aspects of the old system. The only downside is the active defences as some people can be slow to react or get confused. Everything else is already done in most MMO's (positioning, aggro, switching abilities to suit the situation)
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Originally posted by tro44_1 Thats because WoW uses the HT concept, and is a branch from the DnD TT (damn even WoW has a DnD RPG TT game). The concept still follows. As I explained before. Leaders are normally Armored in RPG (DnD the Cleric and Warloard for example) in WoW, the leaders are Paladins and Knights (for Alliance), and they Protect the weak and others [Role Playing wise]. This Protection fits the Idea of Tanking as well. Also Like I said above. Killing the Leaders is a tactical plan. an in these cases, the Leaders are up front Meleeing you. Also with Taunts being thrown out their mouth(or what ever hole on their body), that causes even more hatred towards the leader in emotional ways.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
I think you are still a bit confused. As you explained, Grabing attention is that Same thing as Tanking! And what you are missing about my Leader comment, is that Leaders Are Armored Melee Fighters. Take note to that as I bring it up later on.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Leaders as I explained, are Melee Armored Fighters. Yes Clerics can cast, but that still doesnt make them a Non-melee class.
And Again you point out Aggro, which as I said above, it is a Video Game Mechanical version of DnD's Protector skill. You cant do that kind of stuff on a TT. Taking a Hit, and Getting Attention, is basically the back bones of Tanking Mechanic. Just with Live action Video game elements thrown in.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
You are once again confused. When I said DnD Leaders are Armored, what I was pointing out the the fact that they are Armored for a Reason. Because they are also Melee Fighters. Armored Melee Fighters. And you bring up Jaina, but you fail to realize is that Jaina is a Factional Leader, not a Battle Leader. Battle Leaders are Always Armored Melee Fighters in Warcraft lore. Yes Jaina may fight, be not as a Battle Leader. (Just check out one of the Warcraft books, with Jania fighting off the Burning Blade [Forgot the name of it]. But just take note of the cowardly Knight, who was set to Battle Leader) as I said, Armored fighters are ALWAYS BATTLE LEADERS. Jania would never be up front in the smokes of battle. She, like other mages that have lead, would be in the back fighting. helping guide the over all battle. Not leading it from within.Thrall is a Far Seer, which again is a Armored Fighter just like a Cleric. WHich is why he is a Battle Leader. He Fightins in the Flank. Kings and Queens are Factional Leader. You would most likely never see them as a Battle Leader in anyform other then as a Armored Fighter. They may be a Factional leader in combat that isnt armored, but never a Battle Leader. Mages have been leaders in Warcraft lore for battles, but never as the primary leader in Battle.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Again, you fail to see past your hatred. Body Blocking is still a form of Tanking. Just without the Video Game Mechanics of it. You cant use the arrgo system in a TT. Tanking in HT is still using the Back Bone with was the Protector abilities of DnD.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
No I didnt confuse anything. And TT means Table Top, which is what DnD is. Its a Table Top RPG, not a Video Game RPG. As I was pointing out above, Leaders in DnD are Armored Melee Fighters. In HT the Leaders are the Tanks. Tanks are the Leader and the Protector combinded. A Paladin for example is a DnD Cleric/Warload + DnD Paladin/Fighter. Just look at the Warload's abilities. Seems very similar to the WoW Warrior class right? Thats because the HT in WoW is based off of the Leader/Protector.
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Iam saying this over and Over, but a Tank is also a Tactical Leader. Just look at Warcraft Lore for example. Note how Heart Stroked the Alliance was when their Leader *Anduin Lathar* passed away. That shuck the Allience hard. Thats why Leaders are Always a Main target. (Do I need to point out the TERMINATOR MOVIE for this logic to sink in?) Leaders are always a Threat.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that. I think you are still a bit confused. As you explained, Grabing attention is that Same thing as Tanking! And what you are missing about my Leader comment, is that Leaders Are Armored Melee Fighters. Take note to that as I bring it up later on. No he is not. A good soldier will focus on winning a battle, not on distractions. So have it always been. Soldiers who get's distracted will never win any fight, not 3000 years ago and not tody. D&D have no tanking ability except in the latest version who is based on Wow, you are just wrong and can'´t admit it. Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork. Leaders as I explained, are Melee Armored Fighters. Yes Clerics can cast, but that still doesnt make them a Non-melee class. And Again you point out Aggro, which as I said above, it is a Video Game Mechanical version of DnD's Protector skill. You cant do that kind of stuff on a TT. Taking a Hit, and Getting Attention, is basically the back bones of Tanking Mechanic. Just with Live action Video game elements thrown in. What makes tanks the leaders? Few leaders ever stands in the front, most stands at the back and shouts the orders while they try to keep morale up. I would get a lot more attention to the guy nuking me then the guy who makes almost no actual damage. If the lore say that the leaders will stand in the front always, then the lore is rubbish. Only leader I know that did that is Wallace. it is very hard to shout out orders when you stand in the front because you can't see what the other people is actually doing. Wallace had Black Douglas to back him up there. Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either. You are once again confused. When I said DnD Leaders are Armored, what I was pointing out the the fact that they are Armored for a Reason. Because they are also Melee Fighters. Armored Melee Fighters. And you bring up Jaina, but you fail to realize is that Jaina is a Factional Leader, not a Battle Leader. Battle Leaders are Always Armored Melee Fighters in Warcraft lore. Yes Jaina may fight, be not as a Battle Leader. (Just check out one of the Warcraft books, with Jania fighting off the Burning Blade [Forgot the name of it]. But just take note of the cowardly Knight, who was set to Battle Leader) as I said, Armored fighters are ALWAYS BATTLE LEADERS. Jania would never be up front in the smokes of battle. She, like other mages that have lead, would be in the back fighting. helping guide the over all battle. Not leading it from within.Thrall is a Far Seer, which again is a Armored Fighter just like a Cleric. WHich is why he is a Battle Leader. He Fightins in the Flank. Kings and Queens are Factional Leader. You would most likely never see them as a Battle Leader in anyform other then as a Armored Fighter. They may be a Factional leader in combat that isnt armored, but never a Battle Leader. Mages have been leaders in Warcraft lore for battles, but never as the primary leader in Battle. Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people. Again, you fail to see past your hatred. Body Blocking is still a form of Tanking. Just without the Video Game Mechanics of it. You cant use the arrgo system in a TT. Tanking in HT is still using the Back Bone with was the Protector abilities of DnD. Body blocking works, yes. But it is hard and you should be forced to know what you are doing and use the terrain to be able to pull it off. It is very important in any pen and paper game (except the really sucky new D&D edition). So if you can tank by just stand in the way, fine. But you taunt all the time in almost every single MMO and that is far from the old D&D backbone which demands real tactics. Warhammer did this a lot better than D&D BTW. Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean). No I didnt confuse anything. And TT means Table Top, which is what DnD is. Its a Table Top RPG, not a Video Game RPG. As I was pointing out above, Leaders in DnD are Armored Melee Fighters. In HT the Leaders are the Tanks. Tanks are the Leader and the Protector combinded. A Paladin for example is a DnD Cleric/Warload + DnD Paladin/Fighter. Just look at the Warload's abilities. Seems very similar to the WoW Warrior class right? Thats because the HT in WoW is based off of the Leader/Protector. D&D was a tabletop the first few years but went a lot beyond that. As for the leaders class, that isn't always so. Most parties I been in have been leaded by the healer actually, and I played for 25 years with a lot of different people. The guy with most tactical sence and who is best giving orders are the leader, in D&D it is often a bard. People tend to respect them (high Charisma) and follow their orders. Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible. Iam saying this over and Over, but a Tank is also a Tactical Leader. Just look at Warcraft Lore for example. Note how Heart Stroked the Alliance was when their Leader *Anduin Lathar* passed away. That shuck the Allience hard. Thats why Leaders are Always a Main target. (Do I need to point out the TERMINATOR MOVIE for this logic to sink in?) Leaders are always a Threat. And I am saying this again: A tactical leader must see the whole situation. the point man takes his order from a guy behind him that can see the whole situation. He doesn't have to be last but must at least be in the middle. So is it today and so has it been since tactics first evolves. Sunzu even talks about it in the art of war. As for taking out the leader, you do it if you can do it easy but shooting the medic would be the logical in a world where they actually heals people up fast. Also, I rather kill the annoying sniper that trys to kill me before the leader, you must make a threat assumption and the confusion killing the leader creates isn't worth dying for. Only a really stupid and soon to be dead combat leader walk in the front, if nothing else are there traps and junk. Besides the tactical disadvantage and the fact that it is extremely hard to give orders to the people far away.
Sorry, but trying to find some logic in tanking (Which is coming from EQ and 'Meridian, not Wow) will always fail. It is an easy system that doesn't demand you to make a complicated AI for the mobs and as long as people thinks it works will most companies use it, it saves them money. The reason the early games used them was that the AI was a lot dumber in all games at the time.
Anyone staying focus will kill the greatest threat first. And while you might want to snipe Usama first you should really get the guy aiming at you instead. Otherwise will you die, game over. And in this case is Usama in a vehicle that can take quite a few shots before the bullets gets through it. You can first take out what threatens you and then take out the leader or die while you try to take the leader, there is no tactics in dying pointlessly. And tanking could well work on stupid mobs and someone who never been in a battle before but any combat trained people wont fall for tanking.
The thing that the holy triad hurt is tactics. It is very little tactics in any MMO combat, in many cases can you just stand in the same way and spawn a few buttons.Combat could be a lot more fun.
I have never played the newer versions of DnD...I stuck with 2nd Edition, but the holy trinity never mattered in our pen and paper games because we looked for way to outsmart or use our abilities so that it was not a hack and slash game. This I do not think would translate well to online games. Throwing lamp oil in a room and using fireball or using a lightning bolt to collaspe a ceiling, sneaking in and slitting throats, etc....those online games have trouble making it your intelligence and use of environment or creatures individual situations the factor in beating them.
Originally posted by tro44_1 Thats because WoW uses the HT concept, and is a branch from the DnD TT (damn even WoW has a DnD RPG TT game). The concept still follows. As I explained before. Leaders are normally Armored in RPG (DnD the Cleric and Warloard for example) in WoW, the leaders are Paladins and Knights (for Alliance), and they Protect the weak and others [Role Playing wise]. This Protection fits the Idea of Tanking as well. Also Like I said above. Killing the Leaders is a tactical plan. an in these cases, the Leaders are up front Meleeing you. Also with Taunts being thrown out their mouth(or what ever hole on their body), that causes even more hatred towards the leader in emotional ways.
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
I think you are still a bit confused. As you explained, Grabing attention is that Same thing as Tanking! And what you are missing about my Leader comment, is that Leaders Are Armored Melee Fighters. Take note to that as I bring it up later on.
You're just completely wrong there. Clerics can be made to ONLY have ranged attacks in 4th Edition, and that's the only place they are called "Leaders". Additionally, LIKE I SAID ELSEWHERE there are many leaders that are not armored melee fighters. You bringing it up later on is just you being wrong again, btw.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Leaders as I explained, are Melee Armored Fighters. Yes Clerics can cast, but that still doesnt make them a Non-melee class.
And Again you point out Aggro, which as I said above, it is a Video Game Mechanical version of DnD's Protector skill. You cant do that kind of stuff on a TT. Taking a Hit, and Getting Attention, is basically the back bones of Tanking Mechanic. Just with Live action Video game elements thrown in.
This NEVER existed in any way, shape, or form before 4th Edition in D&D. So as examples of games without ANY aggro, just look at any D&D game before 4th. Even 4th it isn't like MMOs, because the monster can always attack another guy, there's just a -2 penalty to hit. Again, you just show your ignorance of 4th by repeatedly acting like the "Leader" role means anything about the character's leadership. The "Leader" Role just means you have various support abilities (such as healing) and that's it. Lots of them aren't armored melee fighters. The Cleric is a big example of a guy that can be made to ONLY attack from range. Maybe you should actually read the books. Like I've said I've RAN THIS GAME AS A GM AND I'VE READ ALL THE BOOKS, I know what I am talking about here. I can easily write up the build if you want, but it's so trivial to do the research that you really ought to go check out how wrong you are on here.
Also, tanking in an MMO requires CONSTANTLY keeping the enemy on you. That doesn't exist in 4th at all. The enemy, even the ones you have marked (the "taunt" in 4th) doesn't have to attack the Defender at all. You certainly can't mark everything either. AGAIN, look at any version of D&D before 4th and there is nothing even resembling a taunt. The MAJOR point of all this is that you don't need any kind of taunt mechanic to have a combat system. Look at ANY roleplaying game besides D&D 4th and you'll see that.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
You are once again confused. When I said DnD Leaders are Armored, what I was pointing out the the fact that they are Armored for a Reason. Because they are also Melee Fighters. Armored Melee Fighters. And you bring up Jaina, but you fail to realize is that Jaina is a Factional Leader, not a Battle Leader. Battle Leaders are Always Armored Melee Fighters in Warcraft lore. Yes Jaina may fight, be not as a Battle Leader. (Just check out one of the Warcraft books, with Jania fighting off the Burning Blade [Forgot the name of it]. But just take note of the cowardly Knight, who was set to Battle Leader) as I said, Armored fighters are ALWAYS BATTLE LEADERS. Jania would never be up front in the smokes of battle. She, like other mages that have lead, would be in the back fighting. helping guide the over all battle. Not leading it from within.Thrall is a Far Seer, which again is a Armored Fighter just like a Cleric. WHich is why he is a Battle Leader. He Fightins in the Flank. Kings and Queens are Factional Leader. You would most likely never see them as a Battle Leader in anyform other then as a Armored Fighter. They may be a Factional leader in combat that isnt armored, but never a Battle Leader. Mages have been leaders in Warcraft lore for battles, but never as the primary leader in Battle.
Jaina is a leader in Warcraft. If you can't even acknowledge that then I don't know what the point of talking to you is. She leads her own part of the Alliance and her own town. She's in charge and she doesn't take orders from anyone else. In most of the Warcraft games she's the head honcho of the playable alliance as well. Really, you are sticking to this "battle leader" thing beyond the point of absurdity.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Again, you fail to see past your hatred. Body Blocking is still a form of Tanking. Just without the Video Game Mechanics of it. You cant use the arrgo system in a TT. Tanking in HT is still using the Back Bone with was the Protector abilities of DnD.
LOL, I fail to see past my hatred. That's funny. The only emotion I am feeling is shock that you are misunderstanding 4th Edition mechanics so much. There is NOTHING like taunting in any version of D&D save 4th. The "backbone" of protecting the weaker classes in D&D has been about position, not magically getting the enemy to act like an idiot. The whole concept of taunting is very, very kludgy and unrealistic, which is one reason why I want to see it go. There are plenty of other systems to draw inspiration from for different MMO combat mechanics. Part of the reason why Tanking is the way it is in MMOs is that other classes can't take hits in an HT system (otherwise you wouldn't need tanks). The whole system is designed around artificial constraints to make things work in an HT system. D&D is a great example, even in 4th, of where everyone can take hits, just some take them a bit better than others. Body Blocking isn't tanking in an HT sense, because it is a realistic and tactical maneuver one can use on SOME opponents and can be maneuvered around to a degree. It also can't block everyone. It is something one does to protect others, sure, but it isn't TANKING which requires stopping the enemy from attacking ANYONE but you. Just because a game lets someone with a sword and armor protect someone else doesn't mean that it is a HT system. HT is an insane exaggeration of sensible fantasy tactics where classes are overspecialized to make this crazy exaggeration work. The fact that non-crazy stuff exists such as standing in the way of an enemy, doesn't mean a particular game has a tanking system.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
No I didnt confuse anything. And TT means Table Top, which is what DnD is. Its a Table Top RPG, not a Video Game RPG. As I was pointing out above, Leaders in DnD are Armored Melee Fighters. In HT the Leaders are the Tanks. Tanks are the Leader and the Protector combinded. A Paladin for example is a DnD Cleric/Warload + DnD Paladin/Fighter. Just look at the Warload's abilities. Seems very similar to the WoW Warrior class right? Thats because the HT in WoW is based off of the Leader/Protector.
Again, you are wrong about leaders in D&D. Even in 4th, just because a class is called a leader doesn't mean it has a leadership role. Leaders (the class role) don't have to be armored melee fighters either. Again, in HT systems there's no reason to think that the people giving orders are going to be the tanks. DPS and Healers can often lead a raid. You're just being silly. Leaders (the class role in 4th) are much more comparable to healers in an MMO, but 4th doesn't have a Holy Trinity system, which means Leaders do something besides heal and leaders can take hits from bad guys. Again though, plenty of leaders only use ranged attacks or don't wear armor. ONCE AGAIN, LEADERS (CLASS ROLE IN 4TH) DO NOT NECESSARILY LEAD ANYTHING. THE 4TH PHB EXPLICITLY SAYS THIS).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Iam saying this over and Over, but a Tank is also a Tactical Leader. Just look at Warcraft Lore for example. Note how Heart Stroked the Alliance was when their Leader *Anduin Lathar* passed away. That shuck the Allience hard. Thats why Leaders are Always a Main target. (Do I need to point out the TERMINATOR MOVIE for this logic to sink in?) Leaders are always a Threat.
Wow, there are leaders that are also warriors; great. Now if you could just admit that there are leaders that aren't front-line fighters we'd be getting somewhere. Heck, if you'd admit there are leaders that aren't HT tanks, we'd be getting somewhere. Thrall is a Shaman, Shaman can't tank, Thrall is also a leader. Jain is a mage. Leadership is a political and rank thing, and it isn't based on class. I'm not saying leaders shouldn't be taken out, what I am saying is you don't see to get that leaders often aren't frontline armored fighters. There are plenty examples otherwise, and even more examples of where they aren't tanks (heck, most leaders in fantasy don't exist in a HT world).
You replace it with a defense formula that factors in armor (gear and spells), dodge, parry, block, damage reduction, and probably a couple other skills. If you spend enough skills to get your defense rating up high enough you could fight in the front row regardless of your class or skill combination.
As far as hate generating add flanking damage. So if your group consisted of 3 front line and 3 back line if the mob were to aggro a back line the front line would get flanking damage would generate a lot of hate. Nothing would piss off a big nasty more then getting a sword stuck in their rear.
It really wouldn't be overly complicated but everyone would need to think more. Do they want a front line that can take more damage or a rear line that could deal more damage. Now the difference in damage can't be significant like it is now because then everyone would pick or build a rear line. Or you could activate or deactivate skills or abilities based on what role you will be playing.
This would be a much more realistic take on combat and gets us away from the holy trinity some. For healing I think they really need to add many more options.
Wrong. "Aggro" or "hate" or tanking for that matter was from a time when a mob would attack the first player it would see and never change target. Actually, I was talking about the Holy Trinity itself. Cleric, Fighters, Wizards, etc. The players were always trying to accomplish the same things they do in MMO's. How much the DM allows them to succeed is definitely the difference.
Players learn to play this metagame and put the toughest character first to take the aggro.When I was a DM, smart mobs attacked whichever suited them. I would never "hold back" since my players would know and it wouldn't be challenging. Hate and aggro come from dumb mobs and is supported by lazy players. The main challenge for MMO's is to try to duplicate a living, breathing, creative (usually), and adaptive DM with programming. All games are destined to fail in this to a greater or lesser degree. IMO the AI controlling mobs is one of the (if not THE) weakest aspect of MMO's when compared to P&P RPG's. Ironically, EQ and old school DAoC seemed to me to have a pretty decent AI even when compared to later generation MMO's. Everything from medium sized nukes to healing would draw aggro in those games. It still didn't come close to the adaptability of a human controller, but it was closer even than everyone's favorite, WoW.
Wrong. "Aggro" or "hate" or tanking for that matter was from a time when a mob would attack the first player it would see and never change target. Actually, I was talking about the Holy Trinity itself. Cleric, Fighters, Wizards, etc. The players were always trying to accomplish the same things they do in MMO's. How much the DM allows them to succeed is definitely the difference. Players learn to play this metagame and put the toughest character first to take the aggro.When I was a DM, smart mobs attacked whichever suited them. I would never "hold back" since my players would know and it wouldn't be challenging. Hate and aggro come from dumb mobs and is supported by lazy players. The main challenge for MMO's is to try to duplicate a living, breathing, creative (usually), and adaptive DM with programming. All games are destined to fail in this to a greater or lesser degree. IMO the AI controlling mobs is one of the (if not THE) weakest aspect of MMO's when compared to P&P RPG's. Ironically, EQ and old school DAoC seemed to me to have a pretty decent AI even when compared to later generation MMO's. Everything from medium sized nukes to healing would draw aggro in those games. It still didn't come close to the adaptability of a human controller, but it was closer even than everyone's favorite, WoW.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Wrong. "Aggro" or "hate" or tanking for that matter was from a time when a mob would attack the first player it would see and never change target. Actually, I was talking about the Holy Trinity itself. Cleric, Fighters, Wizards, etc. The players were always trying to accomplish the same things they do in MMO's. How much the DM allows them to succeed is definitely the difference. Players learn to play this metagame and put the toughest character first to take the aggro.When I was a DM, smart mobs attacked whichever suited them. I would never "hold back" since my players would know and it wouldn't be challenging. Hate and aggro come from dumb mobs and is supported by lazy players. The main challenge for MMO's is to try to duplicate a living, breathing, creative (usually), and adaptive DM with programming. All games are destined to fail in this to a greater or lesser degree. IMO the AI controlling mobs is one of the (if not THE) weakest aspect of MMO's when compared to P&P RPG's. Ironically, EQ and old school DAoC seemed to me to have a pretty decent AI even when compared to later generation MMO's. Everything from medium sized nukes to healing would draw aggro in those games. It still didn't come close to the adaptability of a human controller, but it was closer even than everyone's favorite, WoW.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Obviously, it's completely devoid of logic. No dragon is going to whomp repeatedly on a heavily armoured dude whose every wound is instantly healed by another dude stood 10ft away. Especially when the second dude is wearing "armour" that offers comparable protection to a paper bag. A thin one. A wet thin one. A wet thin one of inferior quality construction.
Its not completely illogical as you may think. As the "Tank" you are in essence the most "Threatening" in appearence. In an RPG sense, you taunt, boast, and shout to get the dragon's attention and force it to focus on you. Now, from a third person perspective (meaning You - who is watching this from an outside stand point), yes it could seem not so logical. But you forget that you have outside knowlege of the game and its mechanics. Of course you would go for the healers first and ignore the Guy who does the "least amount of damage and can soak an amazing amount of health). The "Dragon" you are fighting does not. He is merely "acting" within the games mechanics.
If you were to think of this in an RL perspective.
Lets say you and I were to come accross a Grizzley Bear in the Wild. Now, I'm a big guy (6'2 / 280lbs / Muscles Galore). And you're a little skinny guy (but with a spear). I'm fairly certain I could taunt and shout and keep that Bear's attention on me while you sneak up behind him and stab him. If he turns to you and goes to strike you, I could again grab his attention (maybe even physically grabbing his head and pulling it back to face me) and make him "believe" I am more threatening...because I am bigger, louder, more intimidating and my stance is imposing (my arms are out stretched and I'm raoring up like he is). His focus is going to naturally be on me - because I am the most threatinging being of the two of us. His natural reaction is going to assume that I am who he should focus on for his survival...and not the little guy who has a sharp object that can sever his artery and kill him.
See? So its not so illogical after all is it? Hehe.
This is a good defense but I’m just not buying it. The grizzly would eat you both and so would the dragon. Ilvaldyr's point goes strait to the reason so many people find themepark play empty. I know sandbox games have there faults too, but when they work there game play is spontaneous and inventive. There are far more variations for the player to choose from, and it is much more difficult to predict how any situation will unfold.
The quest type situation you describe is usually very beautiful and well designed but it is not original or complex.
So my answer is not to play themepark mmo’s, but to play games where I can attack the game world numerous possible ways.
Originally posted by Khalathwyr Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
D&D have been a long way after more modern RPGs for many years (since Runequest and Warhammer actually) and now they totally fell of the wagon.
It was a brilliant game in the 70s but times change. Unfortunately have no-one got the idea to base a MMO on a more modern game (Particularly not WAR, they totally messed it up by using the simple system that warhammer Pawned when it got out).
Wrong. "Aggro" or "hate" or tanking for that matter was from a time when a mob would attack the first player it would see and never change target. Actually, I was talking about the Holy Trinity itself. Cleric, Fighters, Wizards, etc. The players were always trying to accomplish the same things they do in MMO's. How much the DM allows them to succeed is definitely the difference. Players learn to play this metagame and put the toughest character first to take the aggro.When I was a DM, smart mobs attacked whichever suited them. I would never "hold back" since my players would know and it wouldn't be challenging. Hate and aggro come from dumb mobs and is supported by lazy players. The main challenge for MMO's is to try to duplicate a living, breathing, creative (usually), and adaptive DM with programming. All games are destined to fail in this to a greater or lesser degree. IMO the AI controlling mobs is one of the (if not THE) weakest aspect of MMO's when compared to P&P RPG's. Ironically, EQ and old school DAoC seemed to me to have a pretty decent AI even when compared to later generation MMO's. Everything from medium sized nukes to healing would draw aggro in those games. It still didn't come close to the adaptability of a human controller, but it was closer even than everyone's favorite, WoW.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
4th largely plays a lot better than it looks. That said, some people can't get over the looks. I did make a few house rules to spice things up. 4th REALLY fails in making the players feel like their creativity is a limiting factor, instead it makes players think the rules are a limiting factor (even though the game has a system so the DM can let the players be very creative without it getting unbalanced). I tried telling everyone they could make up one thematically appropriate power once per encounter, and that helped to an extent. Still, that's the main problem with 4th.
Anyhow, even if a Defender could get all the enemies to just focus on him, he wouldn't want to do that. 4th has a lot more bad guys at once in almost all encounters (and solo monsters are super-nasty), and while players have more HP at low levels, the monsters do enough damage they if they could all gang up on one person then it won't end well. A good bit of the tactics of the game is making sure they can't do that (though to an extent that handles itself). We had two defenders (Swordmage and Paladin), a controller (wizard), a "leader" (cleric), and a striker (rogue). Yeah, the striker dealt a bit more damage, but it wasn't that noticeable most of the time (and against groups the Swordmage and Wizard did the most damage). Anyhow, even with two "tanks" (and I use the term extremely loosely) they still ran into a health issues during battles, and even with two defenders you still can't make all the enemies just attack them (even if you let the "taunts" force monsters to attack the guy who used them), and again, NOR WOULD YOU WANT TO. Pretty good example of a combat system that isn't the Holy Trinity but has roles for everyone and plays quite well.
Anyhow, I think 4th is more true to the roots of D&D than 2nd or 3rd was, but it does have that artificial creativity problem (artificial because it exists only in the minds of the players). Well, and rituals cost too much, but that's easily fixed.
Wrong. "Aggro" or "hate" or tanking for that matter was from a time when a mob would attack the first player it would see and never change target. Actually, I was talking about the Holy Trinity itself. Cleric, Fighters, Wizards, etc. The players were always trying to accomplish the same things they do in MMO's. How much the DM allows them to succeed is definitely the difference. Players learn to play this metagame and put the toughest character first to take the aggro.When I was a DM, smart mobs attacked whichever suited them. I would never "hold back" since my players would know and it wouldn't be challenging. Hate and aggro come from dumb mobs and is supported by lazy players. The main challenge for MMO's is to try to duplicate a living, breathing, creative (usually), and adaptive DM with programming. All games are destined to fail in this to a greater or lesser degree. IMO the AI controlling mobs is one of the (if not THE) weakest aspect of MMO's when compared to P&P RPG's. Ironically, EQ and old school DAoC seemed to me to have a pretty decent AI even when compared to later generation MMO's. Everything from medium sized nukes to healing would draw aggro in those games. It still didn't come close to the adaptability of a human controller, but it was closer even than everyone's favorite, WoW.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
4th largely plays a lot better than it looks. That said, some people can't get over the looks. I did make a few house rules to spice things up. 4th REALLY fails in making the players feel like their creativity is a limiting factor, instead it makes players think the rules are a limiting factor (even though the game has a system so the DM can let the players be very creative without it getting unbalanced). I tried telling everyone they could make up one thematically appropriate power once per encounter, and that helped to an extent. Still, that's the main problem with 4th.
Anyhow, even if a Defender could get all the enemies to just focus on him, he wouldn't want to do that. 4th has a lot more bad guys at once in almost all encounters (and solo monsters are super-nasty), and while players have more HP at low levels, the monsters do enough damage they if they could all gang up on one person then it won't end well. A good bit of the tactics of the game is making sure they can't do that (though to an extent that handles itself). We had two defenders (Swordmage and Paladin), a controller (wizard), a "leader" (cleric), and a striker (rogue). Yeah, the striker dealt a bit more damage, but it wasn't that noticeable most of the time (and against groups the Swordmage and Wizard did the most damage). Anyhow, even with two "tanks" (and I use the term extremely loosely) they still ran into a health issues during battles, and even with two defenders you still can't make all the enemies just attack them (even if you let the "taunts" force monsters to attack the guy who used them), and again, NOR WOULD YOU WANT TO. Pretty good example of a combat system that isn't the Holy Trinity but has roles for everyone and plays quite well.
Anyhow, I think 4th is more true to the roots of D&D than 2nd or 3rd was, but it does have that artificial creativity problem (artificial because it exists only in the minds of the players). Well, and rituals cost too much, but that's easily fixed.
See, and I felt the exact opposite. 4th edition read to me (again, I only read the core books, nothing else) to be a giant step away from 2nd or 3rd. Different perspectives, lol. Hey, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I'm happy for you. I'll never buy those books and Wizards lost a measure of respect from me and my group.
Yep, times change, but as long as I still have my old edition books D&D won't for me. Now, I'm not against buying a "newer" edition, but the complete rules rework that Wizards did in my view made 4th edition totally unappealing to me.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Originally posted by Khalathwyr See, and I felt the exact opposite. 4th edition read to me (again, I only read the core books, nothing else) to be a giant step away from 2nd or 3rd. Different perspectives, lol. Hey, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I'm happy for you. I'll never buy those books and Wizards lost a measure of respect from me and my group.
Ahh, you misread me. It is a giant step away from 3rd, a smaller step away from 2nd, but it is a lot more like how 1st edition or the like plays than 3rd ever could be (though far more balanced between classes). Really, one of the biggest advantages though is that it makes the DM's job so much easier (this in fact has zero to do with the content of the PHB in 4th...it's how the DMG and MM are setup). It's a lot easier to design and plan sessions and modify or make new monsters. Non-combat stuff is gone over in a better way as well.
Originally posted by Khalathwyr See, and I felt the exact opposite. 4th edition read to me (again, I only read the core books, nothing else) to be a giant step away from 2nd or 3rd. Different perspectives, lol. Hey, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I'm happy for you. I'll never buy those books and Wizards lost a measure of respect from me and my group.
Ahh, you misread me. It is a giant step away from 3rd, a smaller step away from 2nd, but it is a lot more like how 1st edition or the like plays than 3rd ever could be (though far more balanced between classes). Really, one of the biggest advantages though is that it makes the DM's job so much easier (this in fact has zero to do with the content of the PHB in 4th...it's how the DMG and MM are setup). It's a lot easier to design and plan sessions and modify or make new monsters. Non-combat stuff is gone over in a better way as well.
I thought you were saying that about 1st too but wasn't sure. Again, I'll disagree with that as well. Doesn't mean I'm saying "right or wrong", I just don't believe it does. Course, I had no issue adjusting things as I needed them in 1st through 3rd. I actually think all of those, 2nd in particular, facilitated the non-combat aspects a ton better than 4th.
What can I say? I'm just not a fan of 4th in any way and I've read the books enough to know that I never will be. It promotes too heavily the "roles" mentality or, maybe I should say defines them and I prefer the others that to me give more "wiggle room" so that a "fighter" isn't necessarily always what most people would "assume" them to be, which is a "tank". Or a "cleric" can be made so that it can "tank", "heal" or "dps".
Course, it all depends on the people running and playing the game and while it technically may be possible to do those things in 4th, in my view there isn't the wealth of different ways to do that as there are in the others.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Originally posted by Khalathwyr See, and I felt the exact opposite. 4th edition read to me (again, I only read the core books, nothing else) to be a giant step away from 2nd or 3rd. Different perspectives, lol. Hey, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I'm happy for you. I'll never buy those books and Wizards lost a measure of respect from me and my group.
Ahh, you misread me. It is a giant step away from 3rd, a smaller step away from 2nd, but it is a lot more like how 1st edition or the like plays than 3rd ever could be (though far more balanced between classes). Really, one of the biggest advantages though is that it makes the DM's job so much easier (this in fact has zero to do with the content of the PHB in 4th...it's how the DMG and MM are setup). It's a lot easier to design and plan sessions and modify or make new monsters. Non-combat stuff is gone over in a better way as well.
I thought you were saying that about 1st too but wasn't sure. Again, I'll disagree with that as well. Doesn't mean I'm saying "right or wrong", I just don't believe it does. Course, I had no issue adjusting things as I needed them in 1st through 3rd. I actually think all of those, 2nd in particular, facilitated the non-combat aspects a ton better than 4th.
What can I say? I'm just not a fan of 4th in any way and I've read the books enough to know that I never will be. It promotes too heavily the "roles" mentality or, maybe I should say defines them and I prefer the others that to me give more "wiggle room" so that a "fighter" isn't necessarily always what most people would "assume" them to be, which is a "tank". Or a "cleric" can be made so that it can "tank", "heal" or "dps".
Course, it all depends on the people running and playing the game and while it technically may be possible to do those things in 4th, in my view there isn't the wealth of different ways to do that as there are in the others.
The game does read terribly, but it plays a lot better. Also, Those roles weren't anything that didn't exist before, all they did was slap some labels on the classes really. Also helps Wizards and Clerics from being overpowered. Anyhow, this conversation is getting REALLY off-topic, so we should probably table it, we can move to another thread if you want though.
The holy trinity gives me an uneasy feeling. But then it's not the trinity itself that is the problem. Rather it's all the side effects you encounter in MMOs:
Game-play mechanics are streamlined to make the trinity work in (almost) every situation
Threat mechanics
almost all NPCs react in similar ways (except usage of abilities) and get predictable
You are forced into a role (actually I don't mind fitting to a role) and you cannot easily switch roles because of itemization issues (which is mostly an issue with games that focus on item hunting)
It's OK if the trinity is one of many strategic options. I don't want it to be the only option, though. My wish list to supplement game-play mechanics would be:
Not being able to run through enemies (and thus being able to block narrow passages and doors or surrounding enemies)
Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the so-called "Trinity" setup. It's a solid foundation that allows people to play a given role (presumably one they enjoy) and be helpful in a given battle.
There are people who absolutely love being the main healer in a group, learning their class, learning the balance between keeping your party (especially the tank) alive without stealing aggro. There are those who absolutely love playing a CC role; knowing when to use given skills, which are most effective in what situations, against which kind of enemies, etc. There are those who absolutely love being tanks... using their arsenal of skills to keep the creature on them like glue so the rest of the group can do their part... There are those who absolutely love DD'ing, figuring out the best combination of skills to inflict the most damage... again... without stealing hate.
The so-called "trinity" works because it allows a variety of people to play the type of role they enjoy and still contribute to a concerted effort.
I think what the genre needs is more interesting encounters. Move away from "tank and spank" battles and start making the players use their heads a bit. It's actually kinda funny how reliant players have become on the "old familiar combat tactics" that they're otherwise denouncing.
I think WoW does a great job of that with its scripted battles. The "trinity" is still in play, but there are myriad other factors to be considered and each fight - especially those that came later - requires a lot more coordination between a group to pull it off.
I think when it's *just* a "tank and spank" trinity setup, it can get boring. But make the players think on their feet where they can't become complacent and lazy, and I think the idea of the "trinity" might not seem so "bad".
But then again, personally, I never thought it was "bad" in the first place.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Originally posted by WSIMike Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the so-called "Trinity" setup. It's a solid foundation that allows people to play a given role (presumably one they enjoy) and be helpful in a given battle.
There's plenty wrong with it, one of the big things is that it makes for very rigid requirements in groups. I don't think I need to go over the difficulty we've probably all had looking for a healer, a tank, or even a dps. Usually it is a tank or a healer, since what people like playing isn't proportional to what needs to be played.
Originally posted by WSIMike I think what the genre needs is more interesting encounters. Move away from "tank and spank" battles and start making the players use their heads a bit. It's actually kinda funny how reliant players have become on the "old familiar combat tactics" that they're otherwise denouncing.
Yes, gimmick encounters are pretty common. They are also clearly gimmick encounters and exist solely to make the HT feel less like the HT. Of course, it would be a heck of a lot easier overall to just make a non-HT game, then you won't need gimicks to make the game feel like something it is not. This is another problem with HT; it has basically zero tactical depth, so gimmicks are needed to add any level of depth. They do a fairly poor job overall and feel distinctly artificial. Instead we should have a game where the base combat system has tactical depth.
Originally posted by WSIMike I think WoW does a great job of that with its scripted battles. The "trinity" is still in play, but there are myriad other factors to be considered and each fight - especially those that came later - requires a lot more coordination between a group to pull it off.
Even this doesn't make the trinity any less artificial nor does it remove the trinity, the ridiculous of the trinity in terms of immersion is still there unless the fight completely removes it with vehicles or something.
Originally posted by WSIMike I think when it's *just* a "tank and spank" trinity setup, it can get boring. But make the players think on their feet where they can't become complacent and lazy, and I think the idea of the "trinity" might not seem so "bad".
Eh, WoW doesn't make people think on their feet much. I've played all the content since the last content patch. The fights get boring very quickly. A little novelty is all you get, and then the fights have no elements in them that make you think on your feet to any degree.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the so-called "Trinity" setup. It's a solid foundation that allows people to play a given role (presumably one they enjoy) and be helpful in a given battle.
There's plenty wrong with it, one of the big things is that it makes for very rigid requirements in groups. I don't think I need to go over the difficulty we've probably all had looking for a healer, a tank, or even a dps. Usually it is a tank or a healer, since what people like playing isn't proportional to what needs to be played.
Originally posted by WSIMike
I think what the genre needs is more interesting encounters. Move away from "tank and spank" battles and start making the players use their heads a bit. It's actually kinda funny how reliant players have become on the "old familiar combat tactics" that they're otherwise denouncing.
Yes, gimmick encounters are pretty common. They are also clearly gimmick encounters and exist solely to make the HT feel less like the HT. Of course, it would be a heck of a lot easier overall to just make a non-HT game, then you won't need gimicks to make the game feel like something it is not. This is another problem with HT; it has basically zero tactical depth, so gimmicks are needed to add any level of depth. They do a fairly poor job overall and feel distinctly artificial. Instead we should have a game where the base combat system has tactical depth.
Originally posted by WSIMike
I think WoW does a great job of that with its scripted battles. The "trinity" is still in play, but there are myriad other factors to be considered and each fight - especially those that came later - requires a lot more coordination between a group to pull it off.
Even this doesn't make the trinity any less artificial nor does it remove the trinity, the ridiculous of the trinity in terms of immersion is still there unless the fight completely removes it with vehicles or something.
Originally posted by WSIMike
I think when it's *just* a "tank and spank" trinity setup, it can get boring. But make the players think on their feet where they can't become complacent and lazy, and I think the idea of the "trinity" might not seem so "bad".
Eh, WoW doesn't make people think on their feet much. I've played all the content since the last content patch. The fights get boring very quickly. A little novelty is all you get, and then the fights have no elements in them that make you think on your feet to any degree.
-shrug- You have your opinions. I have mine. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the setup. Does that mean there's not room for other approaches? Of course not. The more options/playstyles the better. I just don't think there's anything wrong with the HT so long as there are those who enjoy that particular setup - who's to say that what someone enjoys is "wrong" or "bad" because you (you in general, not you specifically, Drach) don't enjoy it, ya know?
It's a sort of mentality I see a lot across the genre as a whole, and also in the context of a given game... there's a lot of this whole "I don't like X, so it needs to go away and replaced by Y, because that's what I prefer. I don't care that others enjoy X".
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Comments
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
in my mind the best system is one that i picture from the Felix and Gotrex books.
Both Felix and Gotrek basically beat the living crap out of everything quickly and before they can hit them. Those that they don't kill quickly require blocks/parries (active block mechanic?) and those that manage to get by (very few) either (with luck) only graze them (slowing them down but not killing them) or severelly injuring them.
Such a system relies much more on active blocking and parrying (as most of the time you would either miss or be blocked or parried...much like in real combat) and keeps the BBEG relativelly the same (the Dragon isn't going to dodge much but his scales and size make up for it with armour and lots of HP).
Such a system in my mind is much better, there are still heals, dps and tanks but there is less of a focus on those specific roles
e.g
Archer: Doesn't need much armour as he isnt going toe to toe, really good damage (arrows freaken hurt) but he misses quite a bit (it's hard to aim a bow in combat). If needed hes able to dodge well enough to avoid most missile shots from the Dragon
Warrior/tank: The Armour is there to make up for his slow dodge, He uses his big ass sword and/or shield to parry/block most attacks (most of his attention is focussed on his block timings as one slip will be painful but not fatal like the other guys). He doesn't need to do much damage as his main focus is to be in the beats face trying to get a killing blow
Rogue: Better armour than the archer, has very very good dodge and if against blades, a decent parry (not so good against a dragon tail or claw). His main job is basically dodging any attacks aimed at him (few if he does his job well) and positioning himself in a decent spot for a nice blind spot attack. He doesn't specifically do more damage than the tank but his positioning and his quickness allow for more painful and quicker attacks (if hes lucky).
Wizard/healer: Tossing a few magic attacks here and there to see which one will hurt the beast. His defence is mostly magical (so he doesn't need armour or dodge) and need to work on shifting his magic from defences to his offensive spells (like the block system). Heal wise he can toss a few small heals on the tank if he misses a few blocks but most of his attention will be on taking down the dragon. After the fight he can heal more than just wounds such as helping the others regain their energy or calming them down.
To me this system has enough of the old elements to be somewhat familiar while improving upon the lame aspects of the old system. The only downside is the active defences as some people can be slow to react or get confused. Everything else is already done in most MMO's (positioning, aggro, switching abilities to suit the situation)
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
I think you are still a bit confused. As you explained, Grabing attention is that Same thing as Tanking! And what you are missing about my Leader comment, is that Leaders Are Armored Melee Fighters. Take note to that as I bring it up later on.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Leaders as I explained, are Melee Armored Fighters. Yes Clerics can cast, but that still doesnt make them a Non-melee class.
And Again you point out Aggro, which as I said above, it is a Video Game Mechanical version of DnD's Protector skill. You cant do that kind of stuff on a TT. Taking a Hit, and Getting Attention, is basically the back bones of Tanking Mechanic. Just with Live action Video game elements thrown in.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
You are once again confused. When I said DnD Leaders are Armored, what I was pointing out the the fact that they are Armored for a Reason. Because they are also Melee Fighters. Armored Melee Fighters. And you bring up Jaina, but you fail to realize is that Jaina is a Factional Leader, not a Battle Leader. Battle Leaders are Always Armored Melee Fighters in Warcraft lore. Yes Jaina may fight, be not as a Battle Leader. (Just check out one of the Warcraft books, with Jania fighting off the Burning Blade [Forgot the name of it]. But just take note of the cowardly Knight, who was set to Battle Leader) as I said, Armored fighters are ALWAYS BATTLE LEADERS. Jania would never be up front in the smokes of battle. She, like other mages that have lead, would be in the back fighting. helping guide the over all battle. Not leading it from within.Thrall is a Far Seer, which again is a Armored Fighter just like a Cleric. WHich is why he is a Battle Leader. He Fightins in the Flank. Kings and Queens are Factional Leader. You would most likely never see them as a Battle Leader in anyform other then as a Armored Fighter. They may be a Factional leader in combat that isnt armored, but never a Battle Leader. Mages have been leaders in Warcraft lore for battles, but never as the primary leader in Battle.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Again, you fail to see past your hatred. Body Blocking is still a form of Tanking. Just without the Video Game Mechanics of it. You cant use the arrgo system in a TT. Tanking in HT is still using the Back Bone with was the Protector abilities of DnD.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
No I didnt confuse anything. And TT means Table Top, which is what DnD is. Its a Table Top RPG, not a Video Game RPG. As I was pointing out above, Leaders in DnD are Armored Melee Fighters. In HT the Leaders are the Tanks. Tanks are the Leader and the Protector combinded. A Paladin for example is a DnD Cleric/Warload + DnD Paladin/Fighter. Just look at the Warload's abilities. Seems very similar to the WoW Warrior class right? Thats because the HT in WoW is based off of the Leader/Protector.
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Iam saying this over and Over, but a Tank is also a Tactical Leader. Just look at Warcraft Lore for example. Note how Heart Stroked the Alliance was when their Leader *Anduin Lathar* passed away. That shuck the Allience hard. Thats why Leaders are Always a Main target. (Do I need to point out the TERMINATOR MOVIE for this logic to sink in?) Leaders are always a Threat.
Sorry, but trying to find some logic in tanking (Which is coming from EQ and 'Meridian, not Wow) will always fail. It is an easy system that doesn't demand you to make a complicated AI for the mobs and as long as people thinks it works will most companies use it, it saves them money. The reason the early games used them was that the AI was a lot dumber in all games at the time.
Anyone staying focus will kill the greatest threat first. And while you might want to snipe Usama first you should really get the guy aiming at you instead. Otherwise will you die, game over. And in this case is Usama in a vehicle that can take quite a few shots before the bullets gets through it. You can first take out what threatens you and then take out the leader or die while you try to take the leader, there is no tactics in dying pointlessly. And tanking could well work on stupid mobs and someone who never been in a battle before but any combat trained people wont fall for tanking.
The thing that the holy triad hurt is tactics. It is very little tactics in any MMO combat, in many cases can you just stand in the same way and spawn a few buttons.Combat could be a lot more fun.
LOL yeah it's called playing a healer
Quoted for truthiness.
If you have another healer, it can actually work. Very hard to kill a healer who is also being healed.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I have never played the newer versions of DnD...I stuck with 2nd Edition, but the holy trinity never mattered in our pen and paper games because we looked for way to outsmart or use our abilities so that it was not a hack and slash game. This I do not think would translate well to online games. Throwing lamp oil in a room and using fireball or using a lightning bolt to collaspe a ceiling, sneaking in and slitting throats, etc....those online games have trouble making it your intelligence and use of environment or creatures individual situations the factor in beating them.
Ahem... Guys... Bard and Shaman (Player's Handbook 2) are both leader classes. And I personally think of Cleric more of a caster than a fighter.
Just FYI.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
D&D does NOT have a Holy Trinity system. 4th Edition is the closest and even that isn't such a system. Best the Defenders can do is momentarily try to grab the attention of a bad guy, but the bad guy can still attack anyone he wants to for a small penalty. Also, this typically only works on one guy at a time in 4th, so against groups you are totally out of luck (and almost ALL combat is against groups). Also, the "leaders" are really just people that can cast healing and support spells, it has NOTHING to do with actually being the leader of the party (they just couldn't think of a better name, which they explicitly said during development, as "healer" seems too passive, because those guys fight and deal damage a good bit too). Anyhow, the leaders can't heal anywhere close to the amount that healers in MMOs can, heck, they can't even heal every round or anywhere close to that.
I think you are still a bit confused. As you explained, Grabing attention is that Same thing as Tanking! And what you are missing about my Leader comment, is that Leaders Are Armored Melee Fighters. Take note to that as I bring it up later on.
You're just completely wrong there. Clerics can be made to ONLY have ranged attacks in 4th Edition, and that's the only place they are called "Leaders". Additionally, LIKE I SAID ELSEWHERE there are many leaders that are not armored melee fighters. You bringing it up later on is just you being wrong again, btw.
Anyhow, your analysis with D&D also falls apart with the fact the "leaders" are the "healers" so if you take them out, then the TT equivalent is killing the healer. Beyond that not all leader classes wear significant armor (not that I think that's important), the Bard, Artificer, and others don't, for instance. That said, the HT principles aren't really at work in 4th, since everyone can AND WILL take hits and the "tanks" can get "aggro" from everything and even aggro on one thing is pretty weak. I've DMed this game, I know how it works. Combat is a LOT more about proper positioning and also a has a great deal to do with teamwork.
Leaders as I explained, are Melee Armored Fighters. Yes Clerics can cast, but that still doesnt make them a Non-melee class.
And Again you point out Aggro, which as I said above, it is a Video Game Mechanical version of DnD's Protector skill. You cant do that kind of stuff on a TT. Taking a Hit, and Getting Attention, is basically the back bones of Tanking Mechanic. Just with Live action Video game elements thrown in.
This NEVER existed in any way, shape, or form before 4th Edition in D&D. So as examples of games without ANY aggro, just look at any D&D game before 4th. Even 4th it isn't like MMOs, because the monster can always attack another guy, there's just a -2 penalty to hit. Again, you just show your ignorance of 4th by repeatedly acting like the "Leader" role means anything about the character's leadership. The "Leader" Role just means you have various support abilities (such as healing) and that's it. Lots of them aren't armored melee fighters. The Cleric is a big example of a guy that can be made to ONLY attack from range. Maybe you should actually read the books. Like I've said I've RAN THIS GAME AS A GM AND I'VE READ ALL THE BOOKS, I know what I am talking about here. I can easily write up the build if you want, but it's so trivial to do the research that you really ought to go check out how wrong you are on here.
Also, tanking in an MMO requires CONSTANTLY keeping the enemy on you. That doesn't exist in 4th at all. The enemy, even the ones you have marked (the "taunt" in 4th) doesn't have to attack the Defender at all. You certainly can't mark everything either. AGAIN, look at any version of D&D before 4th and there is nothing even resembling a taunt. The MAJOR point of all this is that you don't need any kind of taunt mechanic to have a combat system. Look at ANY roleplaying game besides D&D 4th and you'll see that.
Of course, the idea that all leaders are "armored" is ridiculous. WoW doesn't even follow that (Jaina Proudmore, though Thrall is an example of a leader that isn't a tank class). It's not remotely accurate in fiction or other games either.
You are once again confused. When I said DnD Leaders are Armored, what I was pointing out the the fact that they are Armored for a Reason. Because they are also Melee Fighters. Armored Melee Fighters. And you bring up Jaina, but you fail to realize is that Jaina is a Factional Leader, not a Battle Leader. Battle Leaders are Always Armored Melee Fighters in Warcraft lore. Yes Jaina may fight, be not as a Battle Leader. (Just check out one of the Warcraft books, with Jania fighting off the Burning Blade [Forgot the name of it]. But just take note of the cowardly Knight, who was set to Battle Leader) as I said, Armored fighters are ALWAYS BATTLE LEADERS. Jania would never be up front in the smokes of battle. She, like other mages that have lead, would be in the back fighting. helping guide the over all battle. Not leading it from within.Thrall is a Far Seer, which again is a Armored Fighter just like a Cleric. WHich is why he is a Battle Leader. He Fightins in the Flank. Kings and Queens are Factional Leader. You would most likely never see them as a Battle Leader in anyform other then as a Armored Fighter. They may be a Factional leader in combat that isnt armored, but never a Battle Leader. Mages have been leaders in Warcraft lore for battles, but never as the primary leader in Battle.
Jaina is a leader in Warcraft. If you can't even acknowledge that then I don't know what the point of talking to you is. She leads her own part of the Alliance and her own town. She's in charge and she doesn't take orders from anyone else. In most of the Warcraft games she's the head honcho of the playable alliance as well. Really, you are sticking to this "battle leader" thing beyond the point of absurdity.
Earlier editions of D&D were even less like HT, since warriors could only get people to attack them by physically standing between them and other people.
Again, you fail to see past your hatred. Body Blocking is still a form of Tanking. Just without the Video Game Mechanics of it. You cant use the arrgo system in a TT. Tanking in HT is still using the Back Bone with was the Protector abilities of DnD.
LOL, I fail to see past my hatred. That's funny. The only emotion I am feeling is shock that you are misunderstanding 4th Edition mechanics so much. There is NOTHING like taunting in any version of D&D save 4th. The "backbone" of protecting the weaker classes in D&D has been about position, not magically getting the enemy to act like an idiot. The whole concept of taunting is very, very kludgy and unrealistic, which is one reason why I want to see it go. There are plenty of other systems to draw inspiration from for different MMO combat mechanics. Part of the reason why Tanking is the way it is in MMOs is that other classes can't take hits in an HT system (otherwise you wouldn't need tanks). The whole system is designed around artificial constraints to make things work in an HT system. D&D is a great example, even in 4th, of where everyone can take hits, just some take them a bit better than others. Body Blocking isn't tanking in an HT sense, because it is a realistic and tactical maneuver one can use on SOME opponents and can be maneuvered around to a degree. It also can't block everyone. It is something one does to protect others, sure, but it isn't TANKING which requires stopping the enemy from attacking ANYONE but you. Just because a game lets someone with a sword and armor protect someone else doesn't mean that it is a HT system. HT is an insane exaggeration of sensible fantasy tactics where classes are overspecialized to make this crazy exaggeration work. The fact that non-crazy stuff exists such as standing in the way of an enemy, doesn't mean a particular game has a tanking system.
Anyhow, the fact you don't understand what the roles of the FOUR (not 3) types of classes in 4E are and that you confuse Leaders and Defenders (the closest healer and tank analogies in 4th) kind of makes your post an epic case messing up. Anyhow, it is important for people to be aware that just because a game has people that can heal others and just because it has people that can take more damage than others does not mean that it is an HT. (I'm assuming when you say "TT" you mean "HT" because I have no idea what "TT" would mean).
No I didnt confuse anything. And TT means Table Top, which is what DnD is. Its a Table Top RPG, not a Video Game RPG. As I was pointing out above, Leaders in DnD are Armored Melee Fighters. In HT the Leaders are the Tanks. Tanks are the Leader and the Protector combinded. A Paladin for example is a DnD Cleric/Warload + DnD Paladin/Fighter. Just look at the Warload's abilities. Seems very similar to the WoW Warrior class right? Thats because the HT in WoW is based off of the Leader/Protector.
Again, you are wrong about leaders in D&D. Even in 4th, just because a class is called a leader doesn't mean it has a leadership role. Leaders (the class role) don't have to be armored melee fighters either. Again, in HT systems there's no reason to think that the people giving orders are going to be the tanks. DPS and Healers can often lead a raid. You're just being silly. Leaders (the class role in 4th) are much more comparable to healers in an MMO, but 4th doesn't have a Holy Trinity system, which means Leaders do something besides heal and leaders can take hits from bad guys. Again though, plenty of leaders only use ranged attacks or don't wear armor. ONCE AGAIN, LEADERS (CLASS ROLE IN 4TH) DO NOT NECESSARILY LEAD ANYTHING. THE 4TH PHB EXPLICITLY SAYS THIS).
Anyhow, like others says, going after the person you have the most trouble killing who may or may not have any organization authority when everyone else would die in one blow demonstrates about as little knowledge of tactics as possible.
Iam saying this over and Over, but a Tank is also a Tactical Leader. Just look at Warcraft Lore for example. Note how Heart Stroked the Alliance was when their Leader *Anduin Lathar* passed away. That shuck the Allience hard. Thats why Leaders are Always a Main target. (Do I need to point out the TERMINATOR MOVIE for this logic to sink in?) Leaders are always a Threat.
Wow, there are leaders that are also warriors; great. Now if you could just admit that there are leaders that aren't front-line fighters we'd be getting somewhere. Heck, if you'd admit there are leaders that aren't HT tanks, we'd be getting somewhere. Thrall is a Shaman, Shaman can't tank, Thrall is also a leader. Jain is a mage. Leadership is a political and rank thing, and it isn't based on class. I'm not saying leaders shouldn't be taken out, what I am saying is you don't see to get that leaders often aren't frontline armored fighters. There are plenty examples otherwise, and even more examples of where they aren't tanks (heck, most leaders in fantasy don't exist in a HT world).
Before all this 4th ed silliness kicked in I thought I had a great post on the last page. Now no one will read it. : (
You replace it with a defense formula that factors in armor (gear and spells), dodge, parry, block, damage reduction, and probably a couple other skills. If you spend enough skills to get your defense rating up high enough you could fight in the front row regardless of your class or skill combination.
As far as hate generating add flanking damage. So if your group consisted of 3 front line and 3 back line if the mob were to aggro a back line the front line would get flanking damage would generate a lot of hate. Nothing would piss off a big nasty more then getting a sword stuck in their rear.
It really wouldn't be overly complicated but everyone would need to think more. Do they want a front line that can take more damage or a rear line that could deal more damage. Now the difference in damage can't be significant like it is now because then everyone would pick or build a rear line. Or you could activate or deactivate skills or abilities based on what role you will be playing.
This would be a much more realistic take on combat and gets us away from the holy trinity some. For healing I think they really need to add many more options.
Wrong. "Aggro" or "hate" or tanking for that matter was from a time when a mob would attack the first player it would see and never change target. Actually, I was talking about the Holy Trinity itself. Cleric, Fighters, Wizards, etc. The players were always trying to accomplish the same things they do in MMO's. How much the DM allows them to succeed is definitely the difference.
Players learn to play this metagame and put the toughest character first to take the aggro.When I was a DM, smart mobs attacked whichever suited them. I would never "hold back" since my players would know and it wouldn't be challenging. Hate and aggro come from dumb mobs and is supported by lazy players. The main challenge for MMO's is to try to duplicate a living, breathing, creative (usually), and adaptive DM with programming. All games are destined to fail in this to a greater or lesser degree. IMO the AI controlling mobs is one of the (if not THE) weakest aspect of MMO's when compared to P&P RPG's. Ironically, EQ and old school DAoC seemed to me to have a pretty decent AI even when compared to later generation MMO's. Everything from medium sized nukes to healing would draw aggro in those games. It still didn't come close to the adaptability of a human controller, but it was closer even than everyone's favorite, WoW.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Its not completely illogical as you may think. As the "Tank" you are in essence the most "Threatening" in appearence. In an RPG sense, you taunt, boast, and shout to get the dragon's attention and force it to focus on you. Now, from a third person perspective (meaning You - who is watching this from an outside stand point), yes it could seem not so logical. But you forget that you have outside knowlege of the game and its mechanics. Of course you would go for the healers first and ignore the Guy who does the "least amount of damage and can soak an amazing amount of health). The "Dragon" you are fighting does not. He is merely "acting" within the games mechanics.
If you were to think of this in an RL perspective.
Lets say you and I were to come accross a Grizzley Bear in the Wild. Now, I'm a big guy (6'2 / 280lbs / Muscles Galore). And you're a little skinny guy (but with a spear). I'm fairly certain I could taunt and shout and keep that Bear's attention on me while you sneak up behind him and stab him. If he turns to you and goes to strike you, I could again grab his attention (maybe even physically grabbing his head and pulling it back to face me) and make him "believe" I am more threatening...because I am bigger, louder, more intimidating and my stance is imposing (my arms are out stretched and I'm raoring up like he is). His focus is going to naturally be on me - because I am the most threatinging being of the two of us. His natural reaction is going to assume that I am who he should focus on for his survival...and not the little guy who has a sharp object that can sever his artery and kill him.
See? So its not so illogical after all is it? Hehe.
This is a good defense but I’m just not buying it. The grizzly would eat you both and so would the dragon. Ilvaldyr's point goes strait to the reason so many people find themepark play empty. I know sandbox games have there faults too, but when they work there game play is spontaneous and inventive. There are far more variations for the player to choose from, and it is much more difficult to predict how any situation will unfold.
The quest type situation you describe is usually very beautiful and well designed but it is not original or complex.
So my answer is not to play themepark mmo’s, but to play games where I can attack the game world numerous possible ways.
D&D have been a long way after more modern RPGs for many years (since Runequest and Warhammer actually) and now they totally fell of the wagon.
It was a brilliant game in the 70s but times change. Unfortunately have no-one got the idea to base a MMO on a more modern game (Particularly not WAR, they totally messed it up by using the simple system that warhammer Pawned when it got out).
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
4th largely plays a lot better than it looks. That said, some people can't get over the looks. I did make a few house rules to spice things up. 4th REALLY fails in making the players feel like their creativity is a limiting factor, instead it makes players think the rules are a limiting factor (even though the game has a system so the DM can let the players be very creative without it getting unbalanced). I tried telling everyone they could make up one thematically appropriate power once per encounter, and that helped to an extent. Still, that's the main problem with 4th.
Anyhow, even if a Defender could get all the enemies to just focus on him, he wouldn't want to do that. 4th has a lot more bad guys at once in almost all encounters (and solo monsters are super-nasty), and while players have more HP at low levels, the monsters do enough damage they if they could all gang up on one person then it won't end well. A good bit of the tactics of the game is making sure they can't do that (though to an extent that handles itself). We had two defenders (Swordmage and Paladin), a controller (wizard), a "leader" (cleric), and a striker (rogue). Yeah, the striker dealt a bit more damage, but it wasn't that noticeable most of the time (and against groups the Swordmage and Wizard did the most damage). Anyhow, even with two "tanks" (and I use the term extremely loosely) they still ran into a health issues during battles, and even with two defenders you still can't make all the enemies just attack them (even if you let the "taunts" force monsters to attack the guy who used them), and again, NOR WOULD YOU WANT TO. Pretty good example of a combat system that isn't the Holy Trinity but has roles for everyone and plays quite well.
Anyhow, I think 4th is more true to the roots of D&D than 2nd or 3rd was, but it does have that artificial creativity problem (artificial because it exists only in the minds of the players). Well, and rituals cost too much, but that's easily fixed.
No sane P&P roleplayer wants to have the fighter tank like in an MMO. You know what you get if that happens? A dead fighter. The enemy will do too much damage too quickly and the cleric can't heal all of that either. You actually have to have the damage split up to a degree for survival reasons.
Yep. When I GM/DM, if the party tries to march a Fighter out front I'll either have an add or 2 show up from the sides or behind. In the case of using a dragon, I'd never have him act in the "rage" manner talked about above. Any dragon I place against the group would fight intelligently. He'd use his own magic to counter mind effecting spells and the like.
Course, I'm speaking from 3rd edition D&D and before. I have no idea what kind of crap Wizards has done with monsters in 4th. I having seen the core books before they went retail I knew better than to buy 4th ed. IMO Wizards was making a system to translate to a modern day themepark MMO, not a true followup to the table-top RPG gaming system that got them their initial fortunes.
4th largely plays a lot better than it looks. That said, some people can't get over the looks. I did make a few house rules to spice things up. 4th REALLY fails in making the players feel like their creativity is a limiting factor, instead it makes players think the rules are a limiting factor (even though the game has a system so the DM can let the players be very creative without it getting unbalanced). I tried telling everyone they could make up one thematically appropriate power once per encounter, and that helped to an extent. Still, that's the main problem with 4th.
Anyhow, even if a Defender could get all the enemies to just focus on him, he wouldn't want to do that. 4th has a lot more bad guys at once in almost all encounters (and solo monsters are super-nasty), and while players have more HP at low levels, the monsters do enough damage they if they could all gang up on one person then it won't end well. A good bit of the tactics of the game is making sure they can't do that (though to an extent that handles itself). We had two defenders (Swordmage and Paladin), a controller (wizard), a "leader" (cleric), and a striker (rogue). Yeah, the striker dealt a bit more damage, but it wasn't that noticeable most of the time (and against groups the Swordmage and Wizard did the most damage). Anyhow, even with two "tanks" (and I use the term extremely loosely) they still ran into a health issues during battles, and even with two defenders you still can't make all the enemies just attack them (even if you let the "taunts" force monsters to attack the guy who used them), and again, NOR WOULD YOU WANT TO. Pretty good example of a combat system that isn't the Holy Trinity but has roles for everyone and plays quite well.
Anyhow, I think 4th is more true to the roots of D&D than 2nd or 3rd was, but it does have that artificial creativity problem (artificial because it exists only in the minds of the players). Well, and rituals cost too much, but that's easily fixed.
See, and I felt the exact opposite. 4th edition read to me (again, I only read the core books, nothing else) to be a giant step away from 2nd or 3rd. Different perspectives, lol. Hey, if you enjoy it, that's cool, I'm happy for you. I'll never buy those books and Wizards lost a measure of respect from me and my group.
@Loke
Yep, times change, but as long as I still have my old edition books D&D won't for me. Now, I'm not against buying a "newer" edition, but the complete rules rework that Wizards did in my view made 4th edition totally unappealing to me.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Ahh, you misread me. It is a giant step away from 3rd, a smaller step away from 2nd, but it is a lot more like how 1st edition or the like plays than 3rd ever could be (though far more balanced between classes). Really, one of the biggest advantages though is that it makes the DM's job so much easier (this in fact has zero to do with the content of the PHB in 4th...it's how the DMG and MM are setup). It's a lot easier to design and plan sessions and modify or make new monsters. Non-combat stuff is gone over in a better way as well.
Ahh, you misread me. It is a giant step away from 3rd, a smaller step away from 2nd, but it is a lot more like how 1st edition or the like plays than 3rd ever could be (though far more balanced between classes). Really, one of the biggest advantages though is that it makes the DM's job so much easier (this in fact has zero to do with the content of the PHB in 4th...it's how the DMG and MM are setup). It's a lot easier to design and plan sessions and modify or make new monsters. Non-combat stuff is gone over in a better way as well.
I thought you were saying that about 1st too but wasn't sure. Again, I'll disagree with that as well. Doesn't mean I'm saying "right or wrong", I just don't believe it does. Course, I had no issue adjusting things as I needed them in 1st through 3rd. I actually think all of those, 2nd in particular, facilitated the non-combat aspects a ton better than 4th.
What can I say? I'm just not a fan of 4th in any way and I've read the books enough to know that I never will be. It promotes too heavily the "roles" mentality or, maybe I should say defines them and I prefer the others that to me give more "wiggle room" so that a "fighter" isn't necessarily always what most people would "assume" them to be, which is a "tank". Or a "cleric" can be made so that it can "tank", "heal" or "dps".
Course, it all depends on the people running and playing the game and while it technically may be possible to do those things in 4th, in my view there isn't the wealth of different ways to do that as there are in the others.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Ahh, you misread me. It is a giant step away from 3rd, a smaller step away from 2nd, but it is a lot more like how 1st edition or the like plays than 3rd ever could be (though far more balanced between classes). Really, one of the biggest advantages though is that it makes the DM's job so much easier (this in fact has zero to do with the content of the PHB in 4th...it's how the DMG and MM are setup). It's a lot easier to design and plan sessions and modify or make new monsters. Non-combat stuff is gone over in a better way as well.
I thought you were saying that about 1st too but wasn't sure. Again, I'll disagree with that as well. Doesn't mean I'm saying "right or wrong", I just don't believe it does. Course, I had no issue adjusting things as I needed them in 1st through 3rd. I actually think all of those, 2nd in particular, facilitated the non-combat aspects a ton better than 4th.
What can I say? I'm just not a fan of 4th in any way and I've read the books enough to know that I never will be. It promotes too heavily the "roles" mentality or, maybe I should say defines them and I prefer the others that to me give more "wiggle room" so that a "fighter" isn't necessarily always what most people would "assume" them to be, which is a "tank". Or a "cleric" can be made so that it can "tank", "heal" or "dps".
Course, it all depends on the people running and playing the game and while it technically may be possible to do those things in 4th, in my view there isn't the wealth of different ways to do that as there are in the others.
The game does read terribly, but it plays a lot better. Also, Those roles weren't anything that didn't exist before, all they did was slap some labels on the classes really. Also helps Wizards and Clerics from being overpowered. Anyhow, this conversation is getting REALLY off-topic, so we should probably table it, we can move to another thread if you want though.
I've been thinking a little about it.
The holy trinity gives me an uneasy feeling. But then it's not the trinity itself that is the problem. Rather it's all the side effects you encounter in MMOs:
It's OK if the trinity is one of many strategic options. I don't want it to be the only option, though. My wish list to supplement game-play mechanics would be:
Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the so-called "Trinity" setup. It's a solid foundation that allows people to play a given role (presumably one they enjoy) and be helpful in a given battle.
There are people who absolutely love being the main healer in a group, learning their class, learning the balance between keeping your party (especially the tank) alive without stealing aggro. There are those who absolutely love playing a CC role; knowing when to use given skills, which are most effective in what situations, against which kind of enemies, etc. There are those who absolutely love being tanks... using their arsenal of skills to keep the creature on them like glue so the rest of the group can do their part... There are those who absolutely love DD'ing, figuring out the best combination of skills to inflict the most damage... again... without stealing hate.
The so-called "trinity" works because it allows a variety of people to play the type of role they enjoy and still contribute to a concerted effort.
I think what the genre needs is more interesting encounters. Move away from "tank and spank" battles and start making the players use their heads a bit. It's actually kinda funny how reliant players have become on the "old familiar combat tactics" that they're otherwise denouncing.
I think WoW does a great job of that with its scripted battles. The "trinity" is still in play, but there are myriad other factors to be considered and each fight - especially those that came later - requires a lot more coordination between a group to pull it off.
I think when it's *just* a "tank and spank" trinity setup, it can get boring. But make the players think on their feet where they can't become complacent and lazy, and I think the idea of the "trinity" might not seem so "bad".
But then again, personally, I never thought it was "bad" in the first place.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Yes, gimmick encounters are pretty common. They are also clearly gimmick encounters and exist solely to make the HT feel less like the HT. Of course, it would be a heck of a lot easier overall to just make a non-HT game, then you won't need gimicks to make the game feel like something it is not. This is another problem with HT; it has basically zero tactical depth, so gimmicks are needed to add any level of depth. They do a fairly poor job overall and feel distinctly artificial. Instead we should have a game where the base combat system has tactical depth.
Even this doesn't make the trinity any less artificial nor does it remove the trinity, the ridiculous of the trinity in terms of immersion is still there unless the fight completely removes it with vehicles or something.
Eh, WoW doesn't make people think on their feet much. I've played all the content since the last content patch. The fights get boring very quickly. A little novelty is all you get, and then the fights have no elements in them that make you think on your feet to any degree.
Yes, gimmick encounters are pretty common. They are also clearly gimmick encounters and exist solely to make the HT feel less like the HT. Of course, it would be a heck of a lot easier overall to just make a non-HT game, then you won't need gimicks to make the game feel like something it is not. This is another problem with HT; it has basically zero tactical depth, so gimmicks are needed to add any level of depth. They do a fairly poor job overall and feel distinctly artificial. Instead we should have a game where the base combat system has tactical depth.
Even this doesn't make the trinity any less artificial nor does it remove the trinity, the ridiculous of the trinity in terms of immersion is still there unless the fight completely removes it with vehicles or something.
Eh, WoW doesn't make people think on their feet much. I've played all the content since the last content patch. The fights get boring very quickly. A little novelty is all you get, and then the fights have no elements in them that make you think on your feet to any degree.
-shrug- You have your opinions. I have mine. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the setup. Does that mean there's not room for other approaches? Of course not. The more options/playstyles the better. I just don't think there's anything wrong with the HT so long as there are those who enjoy that particular setup - who's to say that what someone enjoys is "wrong" or "bad" because you (you in general, not you specifically, Drach) don't enjoy it, ya know?
It's a sort of mentality I see a lot across the genre as a whole, and also in the context of a given game... there's a lot of this whole "I don't like X, so it needs to go away and replaced by Y, because that's what I prefer. I don't care that others enjoy X".
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
.