Defenders require bad AI from monsters

[Herschel]

I mean SERIOUSLY, how are you even able, in one sentance to say "oh, the monster can tell the controller's AC is 2 lower and has a few less HPs and is doing 20% more damage so the Defender has a hard time because the monster will go after them instead" then in the next sentance say "oh, the monster can't tell that it's going to loser the fight, even after it's engaged and has had a few friends die."

Because perception is key. My Swordmage with leather armor is usually the best AC in the party. To a monster he would LOOK easier to hit that a guy in plate, scale or chain. To an intelligent humanoid, he may know better.

Marks are like Taunt from the old systems with the side effect of an attack if they go elsewhere.

 

[Regicide]

Any monster that is able to fight has survived EVERY FIGHT IT HAS EVER BEEN IN.

So every previous fight it was in, it was smart enough to pick a fight it could win, this time though it picked a fight that is so completely against it that it practically has no chance of winning? You've proven my point. The monster is being played like it's retarded.

Some monsters like the easy target. Some monsters want to take out the person dishing out the damage. Some targets just don't like the heavy armor ... it's harder to sink their teeth into.

If the monster is tossing it's life away to "sink it's teeth in" then it's a moron and either doesn't qualify for the discussion as we're talking about intelligent monsters, or it's an intelligent monster acting like a moron, which would again prove my point.

And remember, this is 4E. People in hide armour might be rockin' a wheelchair and complaining about their arthritis, but they can easily have AC that is on par or even better than that of the fool in wearing shiny godplate.

 

[Rechan]

Another idea for later: rabies/delirious monsters, and monsters that can then transfer the disease to PCs.

Mmmyes.

 

[GoLu]

You've proven my point.

I wish people would stop saying this when their point hasn't actually been proven. What WalterKovacs said was at best mildly supportive and at worst actively disruptive to your point, which seems to be that a monster should be highly aware that the game mechanics favor the heroes despite probably never having encountered heroes in its lifetime.

Besides, people stand up to overwhelming odds all the time. Mostly, they lose and lose quickly. But they still do it. Even if that is a mistake and they are wrong and foolish, is it so hard to imagine a monster with roughly human intelligence making the same mistakes that people do?

 

[the Jester]

actually the rule is

Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed.

nowhere does it say that the creature knows what powers and abilities you have

Hmm, I suppose I can see your side of the arguments here, but I would argue that "knows exactly what you've done to it and what conditions you've imposed" suggests that you know the consequences of actions affected by (for example) the mark.

However, I can see your perspective. As long as the dm applies the ruling consistently- to both pcs and monsters- I think it's fine either way. But it is more interesting and fun to have to make hard tactical decisions, which, from my understanding, is the whole point of defender marking abilities and such. And there are a number of monsters which have marking abilities with consequences; if you rule that the pcs don't know the consequences, you're springing "Gotcha!" abilities on them, which, again, is fairly contrary to 4e design philosophy.

YMMV of course.

 

[WalterKovacs]

So every previous fight it was in, it was smart enough to pick a fight it could win, this time though it picked a fight that is so completely against it that it practically has no chance of winning? You've proven my point. The monster is being played like it's retarded.

If it ambushed the PCs, it's picking a fight. It's not really picking a fight with someone that busts open a door and comes after you with a sword.

Of course, only a mentally deficient monster would make poor decisions based more on emotion than a careful and accurate assessment made in a very short period of time . . .

 

[Wolfwood2]

I used to have monsters run, unfortunately my party loves nothing less than to pepper runners with slow effects and blast them from safe distances without any threat, since I run a regimented campaign with an NPC with the party to report and record all adventuring parties' activities so the party has a reputation of allowing zero survivors which makes groups of enemies that face the party fight all the fiercer

Being attacked from behind is all that a fleeing foe can expect. The real test is how they treat enemies that try to surrender.

 

[Wolfwood2]

So every previous fight it was in, it was smart enough to pick a fight it could win, this time though it picked a fight that is so completely against it that it practically has no chance of winning? You've proven my point. The monster is being played like it's retarded.

Hey Regicide, are you sure that you're really in as much disagreement with everyone as you seem to think? It seems like you're stuck on psychology when what matters is actions. In what way do you believe monsters should behave that is different from the way they behave in a "typical" campaign?

I think most DMs do have intelligent enemies try to run (or surrender) when it's clear they're in over their heads. I do think most DMs have enemies try to summon reinforcments (assuming that there are any to summon) if possible. "Short rests" tend to occur when groups of enemies are either:

1) Not cooperating with each other;
2) Too far separated geographically to reasonably support each other;
or
3) The PCs were so overwhelming that they killed or captured all the first group of enemies before any could escape to look for help.

In situations where the enemy is highly organized, number 3 may rarely occur. If they're a bunch of rowdy orcs, then the "guards" may simply be the orcs who happened to be outside at the time, with no sense of responsibility that they're supposed to be raising an alarm or anything.

 

[Abisashi]

So every previous fight it was in, it was smart enough to pick a fight it could win, this time though it picked a fight that is so completely against it that it practically has no chance of winning?

Mr. Stock Trader thinks to himself, "Look how much money people are making day-trading! Sure there is risk, but I am smarter than those fools who lost everything. Soon I will be rich and famous!"

Mr. Orc thinks to himself, "Look how much wealth and honor my brothers have gained from killing puny civilized people! Sure, some of my brothers have died, but I am stronger than those weak and incompetent fools. Soon I will be rich and famous!"

Humans are amazingly dumb, in spite of being quite smart. Why can't monsters be the same? Conversely, Humans have a strong survival instinct, but this doesn't need to be true of intelligent monsters; they could have completely different priorities (honor, glory, etc); you just have to make sure you play them within their goals, and within the heat of the situation.

 

[Mad Hamish]

Hey Regicide, are you sure that you're really in as much disagreement with everyone as you seem to think? It seems like you're stuck on psychology when what matters is actions. In what way do you believe monsters should behave that is different from the way they behave in a "typical" campaign?

Let's put it mildly.

Regicide is a large humanoid with unusually long arms, green, warty skin and should be dissolved in acid.