In testing out engagement for that thread, I found out something disappointing: enemies aren't interested in disengaging. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing, but when I was first scanning the Fighter tree, I was very excited to see that knocking disengaging enemies prone is still in the game in the form of the Guardian Stance upgrade to the Defender Stance. As it stands, spending a talent point in Guardian Stance is a wasted investment.

 

Here's what I always see happening:

1) Fighter engages a bunch of enemies

2) Rogue will move into melee and attack

3) Enemy will turn around to attack Rogue

4) Rogue will run away

5) Enemy forgets Rogue was ever there and goes back attacking Fighter

6) Repeat steps 2-4 until I give up and commit my Rogue to attacking from range (or risk taking damage in melee, as the case may be)

 

Am I missing something, or does the Guardian Stance/likeliness of enemies disengaging need to be looked into?

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by mostundesired

Hmmm it's probably similar to PoE in that only certain enemies would try to disengage, such as the monks in the white marsh.   Also it's altogether possible that enemy AI isn't done being tweaked.

If enemies easily disengaged and ate the disengagement attack it'd broken. 

 

Disengagement gets an accuracy buff of +20 and a damage buff of +100%. Its pretty harsh. If you disengage from an Unbroken then the attack also gets +10 penetration which could easily push it into the multiplicative 1.3 damage boost from over penetration. Add in a prone from Guardian and it'd be game breaking if enemies willingly chose to eat that attack.

 

Plus engagement doesn't mean they need to attack the engager, they just need to not leave his engagement range. They are free to hit anyone they want as long as they don't move too far away.

Sure, they don't have to disengage easily. That's not the only solution I'm looking for here. My only problem is that Guardian Stance is useless. Or extremely niche, as the case may be.

If Frightened or Terrified actually scares target away from caster, then there will be build like Unbroken/Illusioner which cast terrify spell to drive enemy away to trigger disengagement attacks.

 

But based on tooltips, Terrfied = -5 resolve, -3 power level and Frightened, I wish it can make enemy escape but it doesn't

 

PS: At least Pull/Push attack doesn't trigger disengagement attacks, otherwise Unbroken/Monk will be sweet.

Edited November 26, 20178 yr by dunehunter

Maybe having Guardian Stance's upgrade makes the enemies stick to you because disengaging would be too painful. Then it wouldn't be useless. Imagine the ability name was "Superglue Stance" and the description would be "enemies won't disengage" - then you'd say that it's a very nice upgrade. So - maybe just the name and description don't fit atm.

Not quite. Even without Guardian Stance activated, enemies just plain don't like disengaging, and I haven't seen an enemy voluntarily disengage no matter which modal I have on.

If Frightened or Terrified actually scares target away from caster, then there will be build like Unbroken/Illusioner which cast terrify spell to drive enemy away to trigger disengagement attacks.

 

But based on tooltips, Terrfied = -5 resolve, -3 power level and Frightened, I wish it can make enemy escape but it doesn't

 

PS: At least Pull/Push attack doesn't trigger disengagement attacks, otherwise Unbroken/Monk will be sweet.

 

As cool as that sounds in theory, in practice it'd suck donkey balls.

 

Just imagine your frontline getting scared and then running causing multiple disengagement attacks that probably crit and kill you dead. Or you engaging the enemy then dropping a scare on them and watch the slaughter.

Reviving thread because I had an idea and wanted other opinions. With the possible changes coming to concentration, what about having engaged enemies interrupted when they target allies? If the creature has concentration, the interrupt just lowers penetration of the attack. If the creature has no concentration, it gives the ally a bigger window to react. Assuming concentration is gained over time and gives a pen bonus, I think it could work without being too strong.

 

Might have to tweak AI a bit. Have them reset who they target when losing all concentration so they're not locked in infinite interrupts.

Reviving thread because I had an idea and wanted other opinions. With the possible changes coming to concentration, what about having engaged enemies interrupted when they target allies? If the creature has concentration, the interrupt just lowers penetration of the attack. If the creature has no concentration, it gives the ally a bigger window to react. Assuming concentration is gained over time and gives a pen bonus, I think it could work without being too strong.

 

Might have to tweak AI a bit. Have them reset who they target when losing all concentration so they're not locked in infinite interrupts.

 

This would make engagement into some sort of taunt where the enemy has to attack the tank.

 

I'd be against this. 

 

The engaged enemy just can't leave the area around the engager, but they are free to attack anyone that they can reach from where they are. Seems fair to me. If you don't want your Rogue getting hit use a pike and stab it from afar.

 

The engaged enemy just can't leave the area around the engager, but they are free to attack anyone that they can reach from where they are. Seems fair to me. If you don't want your Rogue getting hit use a pike and stab it from afar.

 

 

I'm still just trying to make Guardian Stance actually do something, not keeping allies from getting hit. The intention was that enemies could still hit allies, but are discouraged from doing so. A scenario being that if an enemy has two stacks of concentration, then turns to target an ally, they lose one stack of concentration, but still can hit the ally. So far, I've noticed most enemies don't turn around to hit a flanking ally unless that ally's been wailing on them for a while, so it's not like the enemy wouldn't have a chance to stack up concentration (once again assuming that concentration will grow over time).

 

If not that, though, would it be fair to change the condition for the interrupt, then? If engaging three or more enemies, regular attacks from the Fighter interrupt, for instance. Or maybe another trigger, I'm not feeling very creative right now.

Edited December 3, 20178 yr by mostundesired

I had nice success with a comco that dunehunter suggested: pile up engagement slots (I used an Unbroken Fighter with a shield and Guardian Stance) and use Ryngrim's Visage to scare them off. I also added Alacrity because it makes you immune to engagement. You can then run into the thickest pile of enemies, position yourself perfectly so that you engage them all and then cast the ugly visage to scare them off. Not all, but a lot of them will try to disengage and try to attack other party members then. But they got punished quite badly and then reengaged for some reason - Unbroken's diesengagement attacks really hurt, even with a puny spear. But that's the only case where I could make good use of the Guardian Stance.

That's good. In hindsight, that kind of conflicts with the stated purpose of the ability, but at least it's useful. Kind of bad that you have to multiclass to do that, though.

 

On a related note, do you remember that weird situation where an enemy that was chasing my Scout around my Crusader got hit by a disengagement attack? I recreated it fighting the Titan. My Crusader got knocked back, so the Titan started chasing after my Scout. Brought the Titan back to my Crusader, the Titan was still going after my Scout for a second, then got hit by a disengagement attack, turned around and started attacking him instead. Still not sure if that's intended, but if it is, you could lure an enemy in to a Fighter's engagement for a quick high damage knock down. I'll have to see if I can do it again on purpose.

I had nice success with a comco that dunehunter suggested: pile up engagement slots (I used an Unbroken Fighter with a shield and Guardian Stance) and use Ryngrim's Visage to scare them off. I also added Alacrity because it makes you immune to engagement. You can then run into the thickest pile of enemies, position yourself perfectly so that you engage them all and then cast the ugly visage to scare them off. Not all, but a lot of them will try to disengage and try to attack other party members then. But they got punished quite badly and then reengaged for some reason - Unbroken's diesengagement attacks really hurt, even with a puny spear. But that's the only case where I could make good use of the Guardian Stance.

 

Yeah I think there is an internal cooldown for engagement right? You cannot engage others immediately after they disengage. But Guardian Stance lately provides prone to disengaged enemy, which offer u the time to re-engage them.

 

But there is some minor issue with this build tho, when the enemies is terrified and try to escape you, and you are targeting them, the AI will choose to chase the target and that results in losing all your engagement. I believe this behavior is because the flaw of current system because even I disable the 'Continue Movement on Engagement' option in game setting, my character will still chase terrified enemy and lose all his engagement, and lose all disengage attacks

Edited December 3, 20178 yr by dunehunter

I'm back with more results. Firstly, I couldn't recreate the event on purpose. More often than not, the Titan, once reengaged by my Crusader, would give up on chasing my Scout, and I wouldn't be able to get a disengagement attack off.

 

I did get the Scarab beetle to disengage of its own volition to chase after my Scout... and then the disengagement attack missed.   When I tried to recreate that, the beetle was uninterested in chasing, just like every other enemy. So it seems the only reliable way to get Guardian Stance to work as is is to use a slightly meta strategy that goes against the fluff of the ability. Not that that's such a bad thing, but it's very disappointing to me.

 

(Unless, of course, there are going to be enemies that are more willing to disengage in other parts of the game).

Well, from my experience with the beta fighter is useless at keeping enemies aggro. Because what happens is, without breaking engagement enemies usually like to simply turn around and attack more squishier party members like melee rogues who are trying to backstab them, or disengage and take an occasional stab at ranged characters or casters, and then run back to fight the fighter without taking too much damage from disengagement penalty   . I'm glad that somebody found a way to cheese disengagement penalty by making a specific build with specific subclass, but for those who are trying to normally roleplay a sword and board fighter tank this sucks.

 

I think if I want to make a proper tank out of a fighter I should have aggro abilities on him, like Taunt or War Cry, or something. So that enemies have an extra incentive in staying engaged by the fighter instead of running around like crazy attacking most vulnerable party members whom fighter is supposed to protect.

Edited December 4, 20178 yr by Aramintai

Well, from my experience with the beta fighter is useless at keeping enemies aggro. Because what happens is, without breaking engagement enemies usually like to turn around and attack more squishier party members like melee rogues who are trying to backstab them, or disengage and take an occasional stab at ranged characters or casters, and then run back to fight the fighter  . I'm glad that somebody found a way to cheese disengagement penalty by making a specific build with specific subclass, but for those who are trying to normally roleplay a sword and board fighter tank this sucks.

 

I think if I want to make a proper tank out of a fighter I should have aggro abilities on him, like Taunt or War Cry, or something. So that enemies have an extra incentive in staying engaged by the fighter instead of running around like crazy attacking most vulnerable party members whom fighter is supposed to protect.

 

Would you mind telling me how often enemies disengage to go after your Ranger? I tend to have my Scout in melee for flank, then try to keep their distance when enemies notice her and take popshots with pistol, but enemies don't seem interested in chasing. If they disengage at all, then they're already making Guardian Stance useful (assuming the attack hits).

Would you mind telling me how often enemies disengage to go after your Ranger? I tend to have my Scout in melee for flank, then try to keep their distance when enemies notice her and take popshots with pistol, but enemies don't seem interested in chasing. If they disengage at all, then they're already making Guardian Stance useful (assuming the attack hits).

Well, I haven't counted the times, but they do that on occasion. Maybe it has something to do with how much damage I deal or what ability I use. As for turning around from the fighter to hit a squishy rogue - every single fight, sometimes they even chase the rogue after he used Escape.

Edited December 4, 20178 yr by Aramintai

Well, I haven't counted the times, but they do that on occasion. Maybe it has something to do with how much damage I deal or what ability I use. As for turning around from the fighter to hit a squishy rogue - every single fight, sometimes they even chase the rogue after he used Escape.

For me, what you're describing as happening occasionally (enemies trying to disengage to go whack a ranged ally or chasing after a melee rogue using escape) is the ideal situation. If I could get that to work about half of the time, I'd be happy. At least then, I could semi-reliably get Guardian Stance to go off. I can't get it to happen at all, though. The R in RNG is too emphasized here.

Well, from my experience with the beta fighter is useless at keeping enemies aggro. Because what happens is, without breaking engagement enemies usually like to simply turn around and attack more squishier party members like melee rogues who are trying to backstab them

 

Yeah. :/

 

I know the issues (and distaste) people have with aggro mechanics, but I'm not sure how squishy melee is supposed to work right now. Enemies tend to turn on the squishy character right away.

 

Although I suppose it works okay on equal level enemies, since the whole point of the squishy melee is to burst the enemy down, but if you're fighting something that takes a while it becomes kind of difficult to keep them alive. Rogue at least has Escape to reposition on another enemy or something when it happens, so that helps a lot, but I'm not sure how other melee is supposed to deal with it.

 

I don't remember, do Fighters or Paladins or someone have a passive that makes it so engaged enemies lose accuracy or damage or something if they attack someone other than the person engaging them? I think that would be a decent way to make engagement more useful, that's how "marking" worked in 4E, you could ignore the "tank" but you'd take a penalty to your attacks.

 

Of course, the AI would have to be smart enough to deal with it, ideally by choosing to either focus the "tank" OR choosing to break engagement and chase the squishy.

I don't remember, do Fighters or Paladins or someone have a passive that makes it so engaged enemies lose accuracy or damage or something if they attack someone other than the person engaging them? 

I don't believe they do. Fighter's have Defender Stance that decreases damage? for every enemy engaged. There was also an ability in the first game (also named Guardian stance, but totally different) that lowered the Fighter's accuracy for increased ally deflection within a certain range.

 

 I think that would be a decent way to make engagement more useful, that's how "marking" worked in 4E, you could ignore the "tank" but you'd take a penalty to your attacks.

 

Of course, the AI would have to be smart enough to deal with it, ideally by choosing to either focus the "tank" OR choosing to break engagement and chase the squishy.

 

I'd be okay with this. In 5E, there's a Fighter archetype that can mark a number of enemies and gets a free attack every time they attack an ally, if we're throwing PnP RPGs in the mix.

The solution to how to have squishy melee survive in melee is to not be squishy.

 

As players our tactical doctrine is usually 'kill the guy in the dress' because the caster is more of a threat than the meatsacks protecting him. The enemy, especially intelligent enemies, should do the same.

 

Slap some armor on your Rogue so they can avoid penetration or invest in some Constitution or grab a shield. Your Rogue shouldn't get a pass from getting attacked because he can't take a hit.

The solution to how to have squishy melee survive in melee is to not be squishy.

 

As players our tactical doctrine is usually 'kill the guy in the dress' because the caster is more of a threat than the meatsacks protecting him. The enemy, especially intelligent enemies, should do the same.

 

Slap some armor on your Rogue so they can avoid penetration or invest in some Constitution or grab a shield. Your Rogue shouldn't get a pass from getting attacked because he can't take a hit.

 

That sounds incredibly boring. It would limit build variety and throws away an opportunity to add an interesting tactic to gameplay (i.e., What do I do when my melee squishy gets attacked?). Can't have squishy melees, they go down too fast. No point in having dedicated tanks without melee squishies, enemy AI already doesn't want to disengage. The only viable option for melee, then is somewhat tanky damage dealers. "Want to play a Rogue with two daggers and robes? Too bad! Your options are (semi)tanky melee or ranged squishy!" Boring.

 

I think your dismissal of minor discouragements like decreased accuracy towards attacking other party members as equivalent to taunts is flawed; Nothing's actually forcing characters to attack the Fighter, and there are still buffs and immunities to counteract these discouragements. It's just a nudge towards protecting those vulnerable characters that adds some nuance and let's one more type of build be more viable. 

 

A moot point for me, though. The real solution I want is to be able to rely on Guardian Stance. My melee squishy is being attacked? Perfect, I can spin that negative into a positive (melee squishy targeted -> retreat -> get chased -> enemy goes prone -> attack). Non-tanky melee is viable. Still at risk of being creamed in melee, but it's not a deal breaker. Dedicated tanks exist for a reason, and get a neat new role of doing more than just standing still: they're now a set up machine. Tanky damage dealers are still viable and worth using, and way more reliable.  Bam, everyone's happy, and  the whole problem of whether or not to include these discouragements to attacking melee squishies would be unnecessary. I'm more than willing as a player to eat disengagement attacks given proper context, and if Aramintai is to be believed, eating a disengagement attack isn't a tremendous detriment on enemies, either. 

 

So why oh why can't I get enemies to chase after my retreating or ranged squishy more often? Someone please clue me in here. (Or tell me that it's going to be changed. That'd make me happy).

The solution to how to have squishy melee survive in melee is to not be squishy.

 

As players our tactical doctrine is usually 'kill the guy in the dress' because the caster is more of a threat than the meatsacks protecting him. The enemy, especially intelligent enemies, should do the same.

 

Slap some armor on your Rogue so they can avoid penetration or invest in some Constitution or grab a shield. Your Rogue shouldn't get a pass from getting attacked because he can't take a hit.

 

Meh. I wear leather or scale, I don't believe in going around naked, but in the current binary PEN system it doesn't do anything really. The new version with tiered reduction should help though.

 

Anyway, rogue's not too bad because like I said, rogue's answer is mobility, but I'm not sure how other classes deal with it.

 

And yes, of course enemies should do the smart thing, but that's why a marking system like 4/5e is nice because it makes it a decision, is it more efficient to attack the guy in the dress and suffer a penalty, or to try to burst down the tanky guy.

 

The solution to how to have squishy melee survive in melee is to not be squishy.

 

As players our tactical doctrine is usually 'kill the guy in the dress' because the caster is more of a threat than the meatsacks protecting him. The enemy, especially intelligent enemies, should do the same.

 

Slap some armor on your Rogue so they can avoid penetration or invest in some Constitution or grab a shield. Your Rogue shouldn't get a pass from getting attacked because he can't take a hit.

 

That sounds incredibly boring. It would limit build variety and throws away an opportunity to add an interesting tactic to gameplay (i.e., What do I do when my melee squishy gets attacked?). Can't have squishy melees, they go down too fast. No point in having dedicated tanks without melee squishies, enemy AI already doesn't want to disengage. The only viable option for melee, then is somewhat tanky damage dealers. "Want to play a Rogue with two daggers and robes? Too bad! Your options are (semi)tanky melee or ranged squishy!" Boring.

 

I think your dismissal of minor discouragements like decreased accuracy towards attacking other party members as equivalent to taunts is flawed; Nothing's actually forcing characters to attack the Fighter, and there are still buffs and immunities to counteract these discouragements. It's just a nudge towards protecting those vulnerable characters that adds some nuance and let's one more type of build be more viable. 

 

A moot point for me, though. The real solution I want is to be able to rely on Guardian Stance. My melee squishy is being attacked? Perfect, I can spin that negative into a positive (melee squishy targeted -> retreat -> get chased -> enemy goes prone -> attack). Non-tanky melee is viable. Still at risk of being creamed in melee, but it's not a deal breaker. Dedicated tanks exist for a reason, and get a neat new role of doing more than just standing still: they're now a set up machine. Tanky damage dealers are still viable and worth using, and way more reliable.  Bam, everyone's happy, and  the whole problem of whether or not to include these discouragements to attacking melee squishies would be unnecessary. I'm more than willing as a player to eat disengagement attacks given proper context, and if Aramintai is to be believed, eating a disengagement attack isn't a tremendous detriment on enemies, either. 

 

So why oh why can't I get enemies to chase after my retreating or ranged squishy more often? Someone please clue me in here. (Or tell me that it's going to be changed. That'd make me happy).

 

 

Besides not being squishy as a solution your Rogue can do the following:

• Escape gets you clear of a bad situation
• Blinding Stike can make the enemy inaccurate enough to miss on the disengagement attack allowing your Rogue to move away
• Use a reach weapon like a pike or staff and stay out of retaliation range. If the enemy moves they get the disengagement from your Guardian
• I think one of the 'strike the bell' effects is a stun

Seems like there are lots of ways for your Rogue to avoid taking undue damage.

 

I believe that entering melee combat wearing a dress (robes) should have some risks to go along with the greatly increased attack speed that you will have.