[Extension] - 5E - AGGRO: Smart Targeting System for NPCs

[Fingersome]

Wait, did you update the extension already? Because come to think, nMax range error was already fixed in 1.1.1
The bug that still remains in 1.1.1 (and its fixed in the coming version 1.2.1) is that the formula to calculate effective and max range for melee actors was using bad parameters, so it is always calling the default number "30" to avoid a nil error.

I always check for updates before I run FGU so it *should* be using whatever the latest version you’ve pushed is… right?

[Alanrockid]

I removed the PC from the combat tracker completely, then re-added them, and drug them from there to the map. I then put a new NPC on the combat tracker and pulled them to the map from there. For whatever reason, it still seems to be unable to track any of the damage aggro values, even if I dump a few hundred points of damage from the PC to the NPC.

Attached a couple images showing the chat log if it helps. Gilveradin Windrunner was the attacker, and Arackokra was the NPC.

It's probably conflict with another mod. I've tested it with Aure effects, BCE, Advanced effects, Combat Automation and Turbo, but any mod the changes anything related to combat tracker could be causing the conflict. Can you test it without other extensions first, so we can be sure?

[damned]

I used last night in a dungeon with lots of corridors. Aggro with default settings would consistently target enemies that it had no line of sight on were often (not always) the furthest or 2nd furthest target away from the attacker. I dont know if there is an ability for Aggro to use line of sight or to check whether it has ranged attacks before selecting a target 40' away.

[Alanrockid]

I used last night in a dungeon with lots of corridors. Aggro with default settings would consistently target enemies that it had no line of sight on were often (not always) the furthest or 2nd furthest target away from the attacker. I dont know if there is an ability for Aggro to use line of sight or to check whether it has ranged attacks before selecting a target 40' away.

There's no feature for line of sight yet, as i believe this is more complex than the other features to implement (i want to implement it tough, along with an actor detection for ranged attacks vectors to track possible cover, i just don't even know where to start yet, so i'm focusing on easier to implement features...).

If a NPC has a ranged attack, its effective and maximum range for selecting valid target is the effective and maximum range of the attack (otherwise, the effective reach = speed + reach and maximum range = speed*2 + reach). So if a NPC has a longbow, for example, most probably all npcs on map will be valid targets (unless is a gargantuan map). If you think distant creatures are getting too much aggro, you can increase the threat weight for proximity, so closer targets will have better chances.

[damned]

This is just for your info - we had a lot of scenes where some or even most party members were in a corridor so there was limited movement possibilities (moving through enemy occupied squares) so the target choices were often not optimal due to that.

The targeted PC was the most wounded which is what swayed it. I tested now removing the Wights Longbow and he still preferred to attack the wounded character over all other options



aggro.png

[Fingersome]

It's probably conflict with another mod. I've tested it with Aure effects, BCE, Advanced effects, Combat Automation and Turbo, but any mod the changes anything related to combat tracker could be causing the conflict. Can you test it without other extensions first, so we can be sure?

Righto, I'll give it a go and see if I can narrow down which extension might be causing the issue.

EDIT: I removed all other extensions aside from Aggro, and it still happens, so it must be related to this extension.

[Tooting Dog]

I really like this extension, but I am guessing that it’s impossible to account for every unique situation. A good compromise might be a ranking system on each PC’s token—like a health bar or threat level indicator—so the DM can quickly identify threats. The DM could skip the top-ranked target if, for example, the target is behind a wall and move to the next highest-ranked viable target. But I don't know if that is possible.

[Fingersome]

I really like this extension, but I am guessing that it’s impossible to account for every unique situation. A good compromise might be a ranking system on each PC’s token—like a health bar or threat level indicator—so the DM can quickly identify threats. The DM could skip the top-ranked target if, for example, the target is behind a wall and move to the next highest-ranked viable target. But I don't know if that is possible.

That's a good shout; some way to know the next preferred target or a list of the threat posed by each target in initiative would be a good way to avoid edge cases.

[Arnagus]

That's a good shout; some way to know the next preferred target or a list of the threat posed by each target in initiative would be a good way to avoid edge cases.

This is partially already in the verbose chat output for the GM. I am currently muting the player output and check through the calculations (pure logic option) who gets how many AGGRO points. I find myself quite often changing target due to LoS, but having a choice of 3-4 targets instead of.... many is very helpful, especially if this annoying fireballing wizard in the last row is usually overlooked although in perfect range of a crossbow.

Adding AGGRO to spell casting effects is very helpful - for longer casting times, my players are already used to add an effect to their chars. They will now need to do it for more spells - which in turn also adds nice graphics from GAL, so a win-win.

However - having the full calculation results printed (in a nice table?) and sorted by AGGRO (highest last to minimize scrolling) would be really helpful.

[Arnagus]

I am not sure how you plan to implement AGGRO for spells, but i would like to share some thoughts (and rules) for your consideration - and include a feature request

As of XGE p85, to identify a spell, a character must observe the casting or effect (or both) and spend an action or reaction to make a successful Arcana(INT) check against DC 15 + <spell level>. The check is made with advantage if the caster casts the spell in the same class as the character has.

Using this for AGGRO sounds pretty cumbersome and will kill a lot of reactions (or actions).

However, using the check itself (perhaps "passive" = 10 + <skill bonus>) might help to determine if a NPC perceives a spellcaster as a threat. House rule might adjust visible effect to DC 10 + <spell level> vs. somatic/verbal component observation remaining on DC 15 + <spell level>.
I can see this resulting in wizards exchanging fireballs from backrow to backrow as the other NPCs do not perceive the whimsy guys in the backrows as threat

That means a table for all spells with visible effect and a predefined (level based?) AGGRO would be required.
I am currently using an additional effect (for the spells I consider visible) which wears off after the spell caster's next turn, simple AGGRO: 50 * <spell level>. I have not solved the skill check yet but I suspect it would require something like an AURA effect and/or a new reverse AGGROT effect applied to the NPCs succeeding the check with the caster as target.

Long story short: perhaps you could add this targeted AGGROT (or rather THREAT as it is reversed: NPC feels threatened by the target) to your "future implementation" feature list.
Many thanks!