So your approach to monster tactics is that all monsters are calm, cool, intelligent creatures that never make any emotional decisions? I think that you have picked one approach that is what is logical to you, and you are applying it to everyone and saying that any other idea is stupid
I'm sorry, I forget where I used words like stupid. Nothing I said was meant to imply that one way of doing things was stupid and another one wasn't. Every situation is different.
Really? You only have even number fights? I never see those, and even if your DMing nicely pairs up people Mano-e-mano, The approach to the defender you just created is my definition of a striker, hit one enemy till it's dead and move on. If it chooses to ignore you, so much the better.
Whatever. We're talking concept here, not specific encounters. On average yes, encounters will have roughly even numbers of combatants. Again, every ACTUAL situation is different. We can imagine situations where one thing makes sense and ones where another makes sense. This isn't a matter of absolute right or wrong. Think about it. On average if the defender neutralizes as much of the monsters actions as he uses in a roughly even fight, and does some reasonable damage on top of that, then he's on average doing an adequate job. Not a brilliant job, but an adequate one. If the PCs were say outnumbered, well, then logically the PCs would have to do better than average if they're going to win, but I didn't really think that needed to be said. Nor is a defender that ties up monster resources that have a value similar to his own 'doing the job of a striker', he's doing the job of a defender. The job of a striker isn't to tie up the enemy, it is to out damage them. Doesn't seem like the same thing to me at all...
If my DM only expects the Tank to pull aggro on one creature (but strikers to pull multiples), I roll a moderate defense Striker every time, because if that is the role he has in plan for me, I'm going to Limit the number of hits it gets by killing him faster, not slowly waiting it out as it swats at me.
I have no idea where you got this idea that I said anything even close to this. You're off on some total tangent here. I would expect if I'm playing the defender and I've tied up an enemy that the striker will be smart enough to come over, flank the guy, take advantage of my defender mechanic, and get him killed fast, because that is, you know, the striker's job.
A defender who doesn't defend is just a less effective striker, if you don't let his abilities affect the battle, the player gets board, suicides, and rerolls a character that you will let him play to its full potential.
No, I'm going to make the game challenging for the players. It is up to the player to discern what the best tactics for his character to use are, and up to me to make the monsters do their thing. That isn't going to be nothing but idealized tactics, but if you can't run your character in a way that utilizes his mechanics to the full extent don't go blaming me as the DM for that. Step it up. If you think it is good enough to just rely on me to hand you fights on a silver platter because it makes you feel good, well, probably we're not well matched. I'll give you a tough fight and when you EARN victory you will feel good about it.
All this, "monsters are smarter than that" bullcrap ultimately is your way of saying "what is this stupid Defender concept WotC came up with? Nope, not gonna let that happen, Defender's aren't allowed because I think they are stupid. Oh, and if you want to die real fast, roll a Leader because I always stack damage on them, because I hate them too"
I think maybe you would want to please stop putting words in my mouth, because I don't actually see any justification at all for what you're saying. In my game defenders are valuable PCs. There are 2 defenders in a 6 character party in the current game we've been playing. The players of those characters certainly don't seem to feel like they are playing 'stupid' characters. I will say it again though, my job is not to hand them victory on a silver platter. If a defender goes out and just waves his arms around and expects all the monsters to go stick themselves to him like a magnet and that's his idea of doing his job HE'S GOING TO FAIL. IF on the other hand he's taking advantage of terrain, the controller is working with him to give the monsters say only choices to go where the defender is, etc then chances are he'll be effective.
The player might also want to THINK about what sort of monsters he's fighting. A bunch of zombies will probably go ahead and attack whatever is closest to them. A bunch of hobgoblin soldiers OTOH? You really think they're stupid and they're just going to all go party with the fighter and let the ranger rain death on them unopposed? I don't think that would be giving the players a good experience, it would just be boring.
Can monster's have tactics? sure. But you are ignoring all but a single factor in combats. Monsters who only have tactics and never do anything else are supremely boring.
Nowhere did I say that all monsters use deep and sophisticated tactics. OTOH think about it this way. Monsters survive. Obviously the monsters that PCs typically fight are ones that FIGHT. That's their thing. That's how they live. Do you think they manage to survive by using idiotic tactics? I don't. Of course monsters won't just automatically use optimum tactics.
Remember where this started. The question at hand was whether or not it was a good idea for non-melee characters to improve their ACs. If your position is they don't then I have to assume what you are proposing is that IN PRACTICALLY EVERY CASE the monsters just magnet themselves to the defender or go play with the barbarian etc and never ever even think about running down the wizard or the ranger that is hammering the heck out of them and might be easier to kill. I've got to wonder who's battles would be boring, mine or yours! lol.
Beyond this defenders have limits. They often can't deflect attacks from artillery for instance. So you are going to tell me all artillery goes after defenders habitually now too? Sure, they might be FORCED to deal with the defender, if he uses smart tactics and say gets in their faces. Otherwise will they shoot at the other party members? Yup! Not always, but they sure will some of the time, and if those players are running around with AC 14 they're taking a risk of that happening to them. I don't think it is absolutely hands down mandatory that every wizard or shaman has to pump his AC at level 1, but the people playing them should understand that they ARE taking a risk and they better consider what they're getting instead and decide if it is worth it.
At least it generated plenty of XP...
