As a reminder, 1D&D should support multiple playstyles of Monk. Most of these are poorly supported in 5E.
Ranged (bows and/or darts)
Hit & Run
Tank (if the developers truly are grouping Monks with Fighters and Barbarians with warriors)
Grappler
In 5E the Ranged style is supported by some subclasses, but not the base class. I have not seen anything in 1D&D that relates ranged attacks and Monks.
The Hit & Run style was barely supported in 5E by some subclasses. Feats such as Mobile or Crusher are the most popular feats for Monks in 5E. In 1D&D, the Tavern Brawler feat and Push weapon mastery make a Hit & Run style much easier.
Playing a Monk tank in 5E is purely using Ki for Patient Defense. Otherwise the Monk falls fast due to low CON, low HP, and medium AC. The developers have listed Monks in the Warrior group and suggested 1 warrior, 1 expert, 1 mage, and 1 cleric for a party. In some parties and situations, the Monk will be called to take hits for the rest of the party. While the forums has numerous suggested possibilities (Unarmed Defense upgrade, additional ASI, Deflect Attack, etc) we do not know what the developers have in mind.
Grappling in 5E was primarily the role of Barbarian and/or Expertise in Athletics. The 1D&D changes to Unarmed Strikes greatly benefit the Monk, who makes the most Unarmed Strikes. I expect 1D&D Monk will get the following abilities (1) using DEX instead STR for Grapple escape DC, and (2) categorizing Unarmed Strikes as Light Weapons (or otherwise allowing a Bonus Action Unarmed Strike).
To get back to the monk. I think the thing they're really missing is a way to disengage more easily without spending a ki point. They're supposed to be skirmishers who get in, hit and get back out. They can do the first one easy enough, but then need to choose between flurry of blows or step of the wind to get back out (or patient defense). And honestly, rogues can just disengage for free (well, using their bonus action), why do Monks need to spend a limited resource and a bonus action to do it? They need either some kind of better disengage mechanic, or maybe give their unarmed strikes the weapon mastery so they can get in an extra attack without the bonus action and be able to get out easier, or maybe both. But as it is, it just seems like they need to either only punch one time (twice at level 5) and get back away, or punch an extra time and just stand there, but without the AC or HP to really be a front line melee type.
There's too many things fighting for their bonus action, and it strips them of being able to be as mobile as I think they should be able to be.
That could work. Some options using the Bonus Action instead Ki, in other words, sacrifice your MA attack and get some MA defense/action, not so powerful as patient defense but something useful and balanced to unlimited use.
The hit & run style is already the one for 5E monks: increased movement + patient defense + extra MA attack. For tank, it could seem forced to allow a tank without a good armor. For me it's OK if the monk cannot get all the roles, so excluding tank but it gets utility in the way of movement (falling and jumping) and resistances, or auto-magical weapons (without bonus).
Tank (if the developers truly are grouping Monks with Fighters and Barbarians with warriors)
Grappler
Why? No other class in the game can excel at such a diversity of roles.
Barbarians Tank & Grapple Rogues/Rangers Hit & Run and are Ranged Paladins can be good Tanks Fighters can be good Ranged
If you insist on Monk being good at everything, it means it will excel at nothing and we'll be back where we are now where Monk is bad because no matter what aspect of "warrior" you want to focus on a different class will be better at it than the Monk.
Tank (if the developers truly are grouping Monks with Fighters and Barbarians with warriors)
Grappler
Why? No other class in the game can excel at such a diversity of roles.
Barbarians Tank & Grapple Rogues/Rangers Hit & Run and are Ranged Paladins can be good Tanks Fighters can be good Ranged
If you insist on Monk being good at everything, it means it will excel at nothing and we'll be back where we are now where Monk is bad because no matter what aspect of "warrior" you want to focus on a different class will be better at it than the Monk.
The fighter can already do all of those things well. Of those potential roles listed, only thing barbarians aren't ideally suited for is long-ranged combat. And "tanking" both doesn't work how most people think and isn't essential to play. This isn't an MMO. Parties don't need dedicated tanks and healers, and you can't heal through massive damage anyway. Control and damage mitigation is far more essential.
So if the monk can hit 3/4, and maybe it will, I'd call that a win. As it currently stands, the monk can already do most of those with little to no problem. They're not as great as everyone else is who is more dedicated to performing specific roles, but it's the only class that can switch on the fly. In other words, it's versatile.
Fighters at not good at tanking, their lack of damage reduction and lack of healing puts them about 50% below the tanking potential of barbarians and paladins. Fighters also don't make great grapplers, they don't get Adv nor Expertise to boost their grappling, plus they have no extra movement so even once they have grappled they are much more limited in what they can do with that grappled creature. But worst of all is hit & run as Fighters have no way to escape melee efficiently (though this was possible in 5e with the Mobile feat).
Though I totally agree that Monk is the most versatile and can flexibly cover all the roles on an as-need basis, plus have the option for CC (though their DPR needs a boost especially at higher levels).
Fighters at not good at tanking, their lack of damage reduction and lack of healing puts them about 50% below the tanking potential of barbarians and paladins. Fighters also don't make great grapplers, they don't get Adv nor Expertise to boost their grappling, plus they have no extra movement so even once they have grappled they are much more limited in what they can do with that grappled creature. But worst of all is hit & run as Fighters have no way to escape melee efficiently (though this was possible in 5e with the Mobile feat).
Though I totally agree that Monk is the most versatile and can flexibly cover all the roles on an as-need basis, plus have the option for CC (though their DPR needs a boost especially at higher levels).
Damage reduction and healing doesn't make a tank. If you can't be hurt, the enemy will just ignore you until you're all that's left. I had a player with a Dex-Barbarian who thought they were an awesome tank with damage reduction and high AC. But they couldn't hit anything, so enemies didn't bother attacking them. They weren't a threat.
The point of being a tank is to draw attention off softer targets. You want to be hit by either encouraging attacks against yourself or discouraging attacks against others. Paladins can to this with compelled duel, but they must prepare the spell and expend a spell slot. Barbarians have Reckless Attacks, to draw attention, and its Path of the Ancestral Guardian has Ancestral Protectors to further discourage attacks. Fighters with the Battle Master archetype have Goading Attack to draw fire, and other archetypes provide different tools. It can also self-heal once per Short Rest with Second Wind, and Action Surge lets it do literally anything. And IIRC the new grappled condition discourages attacks against others. There are feats for that, like Skill Expert, and it's not a big deal if you can only drag a target 15 feet instead of 20.
I'm not going to go down the rest of the list. I think my point has been made well enough. The core of the fighter is both strong and versatile. It can do everything listed above. It just needs to specialize. In fact, a fighter/eldritch knight with compelled duel from Magic Initiate (Divine) from their background could be an amazing tank.
Would it help if instead of "tank" I had described the role as "melee front-liner"? A melee front liner is expected to want to be in melee, dishing out plenty of damage, getting Opportunity Attacks, and being able to take hits. Not the same as a MMO tank. If the developers are going to classify Monks as Warriors, then I will argue that Monks need to be playable in melee from level 1, not just using Patient Defense to burn through a limited resource.
at start of combat monk designates his target and set some connection. Cannot select new target till out of combat or designated target is killed/removed from rest of combat. Possible other abilities linked to being a designated target.
as a reaction monk can reduce damage from a melee or ranged attack (see missile deflection) from his target.
after free use of the reaction the monk can spend a ki point and deflect the damage from another attack. One ki point per attack from multi-attack.
Another reason to increase number of ki points.
possibly use one ki after free deflection to use against mutiple targets if not using designated target idea.
I used to think that until I played a paladin with 4 free castings of Compelled duel per day (Theros campaign) - it is actually really, really, hard to use Compelled duel. These are the requirements that need to occur for Compelled duel to actually help you draw-agro:
1. The target has to fail a Wis save against your so-so spell DC
2. Your allies must not damage / target the target in any way.
3. You have to be within 30ft of the target.
4. You must not attack or target any creature other than the target.
5. You must retain concentration on Compel Duel.
6. The target must not be immune to charm.
This means if your ally casts Hypnotic Pattern and your duel-partner is in the area, your Compel Duel is done, if one of your allies comes to help you out and focus fire on them, your Compel Duel is done. If the creature you targeted with it hits you and you lose concentration your compel duel is done... etc.. etc...
This means that Wrathful Smite is almost always better than Compel Duel - and really the only reason I've seen anyone cast Compel Duel is if they had an item or feat that let them do so for free. It is not worth a 1st level spell slot.
Maybe some way to add your proficiency bonus to AC, like for all attacks which is aware off, so for surprise attacks the monk would have lesser armor, as is not wearing any. What monk needs that is not as powerful as patient defense but not spending Ki.
IME the best way to draw aggro from a DM is to do a pile of damage, grapple the enemy or to cast a crippling concentration spell.
That's one of the many problems in D&D 5e; it often feels like in 5e there's an unwritten expectation that players (and DMs) should act on the basis of what their character/monster would do, rather than trying to hyper-optimise what they can do, but the rules don't really say anything like that.
For example, let's say you have a downed ally who's making death saving throws, and you know they're vulnerable until your cleric can get closer. So you decide to Disengage to move over to them and declare you'd like to stand guard over them. Strictly speaking the RAW in 5e doesn't really support "protecting" a target in that way, so mechanically the DM can just ignore your intention, move around you and kick your ally to death out of spite if they want to, while you are forced to watch helplessly as it happens.
In practice they shouldn't do that unless they have a good narrative reason (e.g- monster is an assassin with a target etc.), just as players shouldn't either, but the rules do a poor job of emphasising the need to act on the basis of what a creature would do rather than exploiting what the rules allow.
Sorry, that's a bit of a rant on the state of 5e; maybe they'll do a better job of emphasising the roleplay aspect of the game in the OneD&D rules? They really ought to, because when you look at online discussions it's sometimes easy to come away wondering whether players are aware it's a roleplaying game rather than a puzzle players and DM's are solving in an arms race to find the most broken exploit. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
IME the best way to draw aggro from a DM is to do a pile of damage, grapple the enemy or to cast a crippling concentration spell.
Yes, but mostly no. I think the term "aggro" is inherently unhelpful, and not just because it's been popularized by MMO games like World of Warcraft. Even if we stick to the British slang definition of aggressive behavior, we're talking about combat. If a hostile NPC isn't already aggressive, then players picked a fight and are attempting further manipulation. And that's wrong, or should be, on multiple levels. The DM isn't a mathematical equation to be solved. There's no threat mechanic for players to exploit via a skill rotation to force the DM's hand. And that degree of aggression from players is, IMO, asking for trouble. By that, I mean in-game consequences.
Combat is just as dependent on narrative as the exploration and social interaction pillars of the game. Arguably more so since both those other pillars can also factor into combat. Finding a hidden enemy or identifying a spell is just as much exploration as vicious mockery can be social interaction. This narrative collaboration works best when everyone is on the same page, but that isn't always the case. Everyone pays attention and engages in their own way. Some follow with their eyes, intently. Others draw. My wife crochets. And some tune out entirely unless it's their turn. I think it was the 4E DMG1 (there were two of them) that last went into the different kinds of players and how to best appeal to them.
I think the best option is to set expectations during a session zero. And each table is different. One table might really be okay with focusing on the hard limits of action economy. Others might want a little more narrative flexibility. Some might call that the difference between roleplaying and rollplaying, but I don't know if that entirely fits. What I do know is 5E, and its purported editionless successor, does not care for strict combat roles like 4E did. Player classes aren't defined as Controllers, Defenders, Leaders, and Strikers. And monsters aren't Artillery, Brutes, Controllers, Lurkers, Minions, Skirmishers, and Soldiers. We should probably be a bit more flexible in how we view and approach things.
Sorry but why are you misunderstanding my point? You are clearly aware of the definition of "aggro" with respect to combat in role playing games because you mention it in your post when you reference World of Warcraft. So why are you instead talking about a British slang definition? This is an American game (see it's distressing reliance on "freedom units" of measurement, and ugly lack of "u"s in many words), and is a table top RPG similar in theme as WoW. So how could you possibly come to the conclusion that I was using "aggro" in the British slang context rather than the combat-RPG context? I must conclude you are deliberately misunderstanding for some reason I cannot fathom....
Strictly speaking the RAW in 5e doesn't really support "protecting" a target in that way, so mechanically the DM can just ignore your intention, move around you and kick your ally to death out of spite if they want to, while you are forced to watch helplessly as it happens.
Yes an no. There are no specific rules that govern this situation but that's to avoid requiring players and DMs to learn a very large amount of specific rules and at least in my experience is why I prefer D&D to Pathfinder both as a player and as a DM. However, there are many rules a DM could use in this situation: creatures can give cover to creatures behind them, so a DM could rule that a player standing over a downed ally is providing 3/4 cover (i.e. +5 AC) to that downed ally. Alternatively a player could instead run over and tackle the attacker in this situation using the Grapple rules in order to protect their ally (or grab & drag away the attacker).
Sorry but why are you misunderstanding my point? You are clearly aware of the definition of "aggro" with respect to combat in role playing games because you mention it in your post when you reference World of Warcraft. So why are you instead talking about a British slang definition? This is an American game (see it's distressing reliance on "freedom units" of measurement, and ugly lack of "u"s in many words), and is a table top RPG similar in theme as WoW. So how could you possibly come to the conclusion that I was using "aggro" in the British slang context rather than the combat-RPG context? I must conclude you are deliberately misunderstanding for some reason I cannot fathom....
First off, don't accuse someone of misunderstanding your point. Especially deliberately so. If you think there's a miscommunication, that's your fault. The impetus is on the person delivering their statement to make sure they're understood by the recipient.
Second, I didn't misunderstand. I pointed out how your use of terminology is inherently unhelpful because playing Dungeons & Dragons is not the same as playing World of Warcraft. The former is decades older, and its rules do not align with the paradigm of the latter.
For example, let's say you have a downed ally who's making death saving throws, and you know they're vulnerable until your cleric can get closer. So you decide to Disengage to move over to them and declare you'd like to stand guard over them. Strictly speaking the RAW in 5e doesn't really support "protecting" a target in that way, so mechanically the DM can just ignore your intention, move around you and kick your ally to death out of spite if they want to, while you are forced to watch helplessly as it happens.
Well, there’s the protection fighting style. Or the sentinel feat. Or if you don’t have either of those, there’s the first sentence from the Actions in Combat section: When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
That last bit leaves the RAW pretty open. RAW, you can improvise an action like protect this person. How a DM treats it is another question, but the option in there.
IME the best way to draw aggro from a DM is to do a pile of damage, grapple the enemy or to cast a crippling concentration spell.
Sorry, that's a bit of a rant on the state of 5e; maybe they'll do a better job of emphasising the roleplay aspect of the game in the OneD&D rules? They really ought to, because when you look at online discussions it's sometimes easy to come away wondering whether players are aware it's a roleplaying game rather than a puzzle players and DM's are solving in an arms race to find the most broken exploit. 😂
Amen. That’s why I directly ban from my game anything broken. But we have few optional rules for many things.
Second, I didn't misunderstand. I pointed out how your use of terminology is inherently unhelpful because playing Dungeons & Dragons is not the same as playing World of Warcraft. The former is decades older, and its rules do not align with the paradigm of the latter.
1) Just because a term was popularized in one context doesn't mean it cannot be used in another context. The utility of a word is measured in it's ability to communicate an idea. Other posters and yourself clearly understood the intended meaning of the word thus it was a useful word to use. [Other examples are the use of the word "noob" outside of Counterstrike (or whatever online multiplayer game originated/popularized it) is completely valid, as is the use of "lol" and "WTF" as a verbal words despite their origin in text.]
2) You then went off on tangent by assuming the evidently incorrect definition of the word despite recognizing the intended context/definition because you simply refused to acknowledge the intended definition as valid.
Combat in D&D is not some radical unique invention for which there are no parallel anywhere else. It is a turn-based, (frequently) grid-based combat system with different classes that are particularly suited to certain combat styles, including melee, ranged, AoE, and healing/buffing/support that rewards characters specialized in one or a few of these styles. There are dozens of games with a similar framework. Aggro as word applies perfectly fine to convey choice made by the enemies (as determined by the DM or an AI) of who and when to attack in a simple and efficient manner as it does in the hundreds of other games where the focus is PvE rather than PvP. Triggering aggro in Call of Cthulhu is definitely something to be avoided, but Barbarians in D&D generally want to draw aggro to themselves, while Monk generally want to avoid aggro by using Patient Defense or moving away from enemies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As a reminder, 1D&D should support multiple playstyles of Monk. Most of these are poorly supported in 5E.
In 5E the Ranged style is supported by some subclasses, but not the base class. I have not seen anything in 1D&D that relates ranged attacks and Monks.
The Hit & Run style was barely supported in 5E by some subclasses. Feats such as Mobile or Crusher are the most popular feats for Monks in 5E. In 1D&D, the Tavern Brawler feat and Push weapon mastery make a Hit & Run style much easier.
Playing a Monk tank in 5E is purely using Ki for Patient Defense. Otherwise the Monk falls fast due to low CON, low HP, and medium AC. The developers have listed Monks in the Warrior group and suggested 1 warrior, 1 expert, 1 mage, and 1 cleric for a party. In some parties and situations, the Monk will be called to take hits for the rest of the party. While the forums has numerous suggested possibilities (Unarmed Defense upgrade, additional ASI, Deflect Attack, etc) we do not know what the developers have in mind.
Grappling in 5E was primarily the role of Barbarian and/or Expertise in Athletics. The 1D&D changes to Unarmed Strikes greatly benefit the Monk, who makes the most Unarmed Strikes. I expect 1D&D Monk will get the following abilities (1) using DEX instead STR for Grapple escape DC, and (2) categorizing Unarmed Strikes as Light Weapons (or otherwise allowing a Bonus Action Unarmed Strike).
That could work. Some options using the Bonus Action instead Ki, in other words, sacrifice your MA attack and get some MA defense/action, not so powerful as patient defense but something useful and balanced to unlimited use.
The hit & run style is already the one for 5E monks: increased movement + patient defense + extra MA attack. For tank, it could seem forced to allow a tank without a good armor. For me it's OK if the monk cannot get all the roles, so excluding tank but it gets utility in the way of movement (falling and jumping) and resistances, or auto-magical weapons (without bonus).
Why? No other class in the game can excel at such a diversity of roles.
Barbarians Tank & Grapple
Rogues/Rangers Hit & Run and are Ranged
Paladins can be good Tanks
Fighters can be good Ranged
If you insist on Monk being good at everything, it means it will excel at nothing and we'll be back where we are now where Monk is bad because no matter what aspect of "warrior" you want to focus on a different class will be better at it than the Monk.
The fighter can already do all of those things well. Of those potential roles listed, only thing barbarians aren't ideally suited for is long-ranged combat. And "tanking" both doesn't work how most people think and isn't essential to play. This isn't an MMO. Parties don't need dedicated tanks and healers, and you can't heal through massive damage anyway. Control and damage mitigation is far more essential.
So if the monk can hit 3/4, and maybe it will, I'd call that a win. As it currently stands, the monk can already do most of those with little to no problem. They're not as great as everyone else is who is more dedicated to performing specific roles, but it's the only class that can switch on the fly. In other words, it's versatile.
Fighters at not good at tanking, their lack of damage reduction and lack of healing puts them about 50% below the tanking potential of barbarians and paladins. Fighters also don't make great grapplers, they don't get Adv nor Expertise to boost their grappling, plus they have no extra movement so even once they have grappled they are much more limited in what they can do with that grappled creature. But worst of all is hit & run as Fighters have no way to escape melee efficiently (though this was possible in 5e with the Mobile feat).
Though I totally agree that Monk is the most versatile and can flexibly cover all the roles on an as-need basis, plus have the option for CC (though their DPR needs a boost especially at higher levels).
Damage reduction and healing doesn't make a tank. If you can't be hurt, the enemy will just ignore you until you're all that's left. I had a player with a Dex-Barbarian who thought they were an awesome tank with damage reduction and high AC. But they couldn't hit anything, so enemies didn't bother attacking them. They weren't a threat.
The point of being a tank is to draw attention off softer targets. You want to be hit by either encouraging attacks against yourself or discouraging attacks against others. Paladins can to this with compelled duel, but they must prepare the spell and expend a spell slot. Barbarians have Reckless Attacks, to draw attention, and its Path of the Ancestral Guardian has Ancestral Protectors to further discourage attacks. Fighters with the Battle Master archetype have Goading Attack to draw fire, and other archetypes provide different tools. It can also self-heal once per Short Rest with Second Wind, and Action Surge lets it do literally anything. And IIRC the new grappled condition discourages attacks against others. There are feats for that, like Skill Expert, and it's not a big deal if you can only drag a target 15 feet instead of 20.
I'm not going to go down the rest of the list. I think my point has been made well enough. The core of the fighter is both strong and versatile. It can do everything listed above. It just needs to specialize. In fact, a fighter/eldritch knight with compelled duel from Magic Initiate (Divine) from their background could be an amazing tank.
Would it help if instead of "tank" I had described the role as "melee front-liner"? A melee front liner is expected to want to be in melee, dishing out plenty of damage, getting Opportunity Attacks, and being able to take hits. Not the same as a MMO tank. If the developers are going to classify Monks as Warriors, then I will argue that Monks need to be playable in melee from level 1, not just using Patient Defense to burn through a limited resource.
An idea for bandage reduction.
Redirect attack.
at start of combat monk designates his target and set some connection. Cannot select new target till out of combat or designated target is killed/removed from rest of combat. Possible other abilities linked to being a designated target.
as a reaction monk can reduce damage from a melee or ranged attack (see missile deflection) from his target.
after free use of the reaction the monk can spend a ki point and deflect the damage from another attack. One ki point per attack from multi-attack.
Another reason to increase number of ki points.
possibly use one ki after free deflection to use against mutiple targets if not using designated target idea.
I used to think that until I played a paladin with 4 free castings of Compelled duel per day (Theros campaign) - it is actually really, really, hard to use Compelled duel. These are the requirements that need to occur for Compelled duel to actually help you draw-agro:
1. The target has to fail a Wis save against your so-so spell DC
2. Your allies must not damage / target the target in any way.
3. You have to be within 30ft of the target.
4. You must not attack or target any creature other than the target.
5. You must retain concentration on Compel Duel.
6. The target must not be immune to charm.
This means if your ally casts Hypnotic Pattern and your duel-partner is in the area, your Compel Duel is done, if one of your allies comes to help you out and focus fire on them, your Compel Duel is done. If the creature you targeted with it hits you and you lose concentration your compel duel is done... etc.. etc...
This means that Wrathful Smite is almost always better than Compel Duel - and really the only reason I've seen anyone cast Compel Duel is if they had an item or feat that let them do so for free. It is not worth a 1st level spell slot.
IME the best way to draw aggro from a DM is to do a pile of damage, grapple the enemy or to cast a crippling concentration spell.
Maybe some way to add your proficiency bonus to AC, like for all attacks which is aware off, so for surprise attacks the monk would have lesser armor, as is not wearing any. What monk needs that is not as powerful as patient defense but not spending Ki.
That's one of the many problems in D&D 5e; it often feels like in 5e there's an unwritten expectation that players (and DMs) should act on the basis of what their character/monster would do, rather than trying to hyper-optimise what they can do, but the rules don't really say anything like that.
For example, let's say you have a downed ally who's making death saving throws, and you know they're vulnerable until your cleric can get closer. So you decide to Disengage to move over to them and declare you'd like to stand guard over them. Strictly speaking the RAW in 5e doesn't really support "protecting" a target in that way, so mechanically the DM can just ignore your intention, move around you and kick your ally to death out of spite if they want to, while you are forced to watch helplessly as it happens.
In practice they shouldn't do that unless they have a good narrative reason (e.g- monster is an assassin with a target etc.), just as players shouldn't either, but the rules do a poor job of emphasising the need to act on the basis of what a creature would do rather than exploiting what the rules allow.
Sorry, that's a bit of a rant on the state of 5e; maybe they'll do a better job of emphasising the roleplay aspect of the game in the OneD&D rules? They really ought to, because when you look at online discussions it's sometimes easy to come away wondering whether players are aware it's a roleplaying game rather than a puzzle players and DM's are solving in an arms race to find the most broken exploit. 😂
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Agreed! Lots of the online discussion about D&D is really unhelpful IME because it is so divorced from the reality at a table.
Yes, but mostly no. I think the term "aggro" is inherently unhelpful, and not just because it's been popularized by MMO games like World of Warcraft. Even if we stick to the British slang definition of aggressive behavior, we're talking about combat. If a hostile NPC isn't already aggressive, then players picked a fight and are attempting further manipulation. And that's wrong, or should be, on multiple levels. The DM isn't a mathematical equation to be solved. There's no threat mechanic for players to exploit via a skill rotation to force the DM's hand. And that degree of aggression from players is, IMO, asking for trouble. By that, I mean in-game consequences.
Combat is just as dependent on narrative as the exploration and social interaction pillars of the game. Arguably more so since both those other pillars can also factor into combat. Finding a hidden enemy or identifying a spell is just as much exploration as vicious mockery can be social interaction. This narrative collaboration works best when everyone is on the same page, but that isn't always the case. Everyone pays attention and engages in their own way. Some follow with their eyes, intently. Others draw. My wife crochets. And some tune out entirely unless it's their turn. I think it was the 4E DMG1 (there were two of them) that last went into the different kinds of players and how to best appeal to them.
I think the best option is to set expectations during a session zero. And each table is different. One table might really be okay with focusing on the hard limits of action economy. Others might want a little more narrative flexibility. Some might call that the difference between roleplaying and rollplaying, but I don't know if that entirely fits. What I do know is 5E, and its purported editionless successor, does not care for strict combat roles like 4E did. Player classes aren't defined as Controllers, Defenders, Leaders, and Strikers. And monsters aren't Artillery, Brutes, Controllers, Lurkers, Minions, Skirmishers, and Soldiers. We should probably be a bit more flexible in how we view and approach things.
Sorry but why are you misunderstanding my point? You are clearly aware of the definition of "aggro" with respect to combat in role playing games because you mention it in your post when you reference World of Warcraft. So why are you instead talking about a British slang definition? This is an American game (see it's distressing reliance on "freedom units" of measurement, and ugly lack of "u"s in many words), and is a table top RPG similar in theme as WoW. So how could you possibly come to the conclusion that I was using "aggro" in the British slang context rather than the combat-RPG context? I must conclude you are deliberately misunderstanding for some reason I cannot fathom....
Yes an no. There are no specific rules that govern this situation but that's to avoid requiring players and DMs to learn a very large amount of specific rules and at least in my experience is why I prefer D&D to Pathfinder both as a player and as a DM. However, there are many rules a DM could use in this situation: creatures can give cover to creatures behind them, so a DM could rule that a player standing over a downed ally is providing 3/4 cover (i.e. +5 AC) to that downed ally. Alternatively a player could instead run over and tackle the attacker in this situation using the Grapple rules in order to protect their ally (or grab & drag away the attacker).
First off, don't accuse someone of misunderstanding your point. Especially deliberately so. If you think there's a miscommunication, that's your fault. The impetus is on the person delivering their statement to make sure they're understood by the recipient.
Second, I didn't misunderstand. I pointed out how your use of terminology is inherently unhelpful because playing Dungeons & Dragons is not the same as playing World of Warcraft. The former is decades older, and its rules do not align with the paradigm of the latter.
Well, there’s the protection fighting style. Or the sentinel feat. Or if you don’t have either of those, there’s the first sentence from the Actions in Combat section: When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
That last bit leaves the RAW pretty open. RAW, you can improvise an action like protect this person. How a DM treats it is another question, but the option in there.
Amen. That’s why I directly ban from my game anything broken. But we have few optional rules for many things.
1) Just because a term was popularized in one context doesn't mean it cannot be used in another context. The utility of a word is measured in it's ability to communicate an idea. Other posters and yourself clearly understood the intended meaning of the word thus it was a useful word to use. [Other examples are the use of the word "noob" outside of Counterstrike (or whatever online multiplayer game originated/popularized it) is completely valid, as is the use of "lol" and "WTF" as a verbal words despite their origin in text.]
2) You then went off on tangent by assuming the evidently incorrect definition of the word despite recognizing the intended context/definition because you simply refused to acknowledge the intended definition as valid.
Combat in D&D is not some radical unique invention for which there are no parallel anywhere else. It is a turn-based, (frequently) grid-based combat system with different classes that are particularly suited to certain combat styles, including melee, ranged, AoE, and healing/buffing/support that rewards characters specialized in one or a few of these styles. There are dozens of games with a similar framework. Aggro as word applies perfectly fine to convey choice made by the enemies (as determined by the DM or an AI) of who and when to attack in a simple and efficient manner as it does in the hundreds of other games where the focus is PvE rather than PvP. Triggering aggro in Call of Cthulhu is definitely something to be avoided, but Barbarians in D&D generally want to draw aggro to themselves, while Monk generally want to avoid aggro by using Patient Defense or moving away from enemies.