It's totally the territory of DM whim. You quoted the relevent text and still totally missed what the PHB is saying:
The Fighter doesn't decide to have the monster provoke a movement Opportunity Attack, the DM does.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Party AC difference
- Thread starter Mengu
- Start date
It's totally the territory of DM whim. You quoted the relevent text and still totally missed what the PHB is saying:
The Fighter doesn't decide to have the monster provoke a movement Opportunity Attack, the DM does.
KarinsDad, my fighter has been strongly encouraging monsters to stay the heck put since level 1. It's a combination of class features and powers:
- Combat Challenge means I get to punish them if they go after my buddies. I use a two-hander, so I like to loom over the table with a big grin if the DM looks like he's going after my ally.
- Combat Superiority means I get to stop them from walking away imprudently... and it's quite likely to hit.
- Steel Serpent Strike removes their ability to shift, which means they *have* to provoke an OA if they don't want to be beside me.
The three of those together is incredibly sticky. It's not a foolproof lockdown, but it's pretty damn likely to make monsters think twice about ignoring me. Besides, a perfect lockdown goes against 4e's "no infinite oregano" policy, especially if it's completely at-will.
-blarg
I agree. The three of these are sticky, for one foe for one round if it hits. But, just Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority by themselves are not. And, many Fighters do not have Steel Serpent Strike.
The point people appear to be missing is that the stickiness of Fighters is mostly under the control of the DM, not the player.
Last edited:
Kingreaper
Adventurer
Everything is under the DM in the end.
The DM could make enemies with phasing, who shift everywhere, and have +40 to hit and deal 10d20+11 damage.
That's not the point. The point is reasonable situations, not whether or not the GM can
people over.
In reasonable conditions, the fighter is relatively sticky. Not perfectly sticky (that'd make things too easy) but not as easily bypassed as non-defenders.
The DM could make enemies with phasing, who shift everywhere, and have +40 to hit and deal 10d20+11 damage.
That's not the point. The point is reasonable situations, not whether or not the GM can
people over.In reasonable conditions, the fighter is relatively sticky. Not perfectly sticky (that'd make things too easy) but not as easily bypassed as non-defenders.
Actually, this is horrendously bad, not ok.
The N encounter will be hitting the Fighter on a 16 and hitting the Shaman on a 4 with a 12 spread. One cannot ensure that the Fighter's or Warden's mark is always helping.
The N+4 encounter would be hitting two PCs on a 2 and one PC on a 4.
This type of party would handcuff a DM greatly. Every fight would have to be easy foes, or he would have to "cheat" to ensure that the tougher foes mostly attacked the better protected PCs. The Fighter would be hard to touch, but the Warden would be sucking up healing surges right and left.
Fortunately, this does not occur in actual game play too often due to feats, powers, cover bonus, etc.
That's not the point. The point is reasonable situations, not whether or not the GM can
It's not about screwing players over. It's about playing the foes to the best of the foe's abilities and the foe's knowledge.
If every foe next to a Fighter stays put, then the DM is failing in his job to present challenging and fun encounters.
By having reasonably intelligent foes avoid Defenders and attack others, the DM is forcing the players to not just assume that foes will die on the end of the Defender's weapon. Instead, it forces the players to come up with good tactics and to often move their PCs to gain advantages, including moving the Defender a lot to engage multiple foes when possible.
I have a Living Eberron game in an encounter where the foes are skeletons. They are doing a bunch of "pre-programmed" instructions and every once in a while, it results in a really stupid manuever for them. They have given out multiple OAs during the fight. But, that's ok since they have Int 3. They do not go out of their way to avoid the Defender because they don't know what a Defender is. They also don't go out of their way to flank foes or avoid OAs. They move directly to a foe and attack, regardless of whether that puts them in harms way.
True. But he is not as sticky as some people think he is or as some DMs play that he is.
Victim
First Post
The point you seem to be missing that is that ignoring the fighter's mark assists the fighter in killing the monster. The fighter is sticky not because enemies can't shift+charge away but because doing so can quite expensive since it gets you beat down faster. It can be really dumb; sometimes giving the fighter double damage!
Moreover, from an RP in world perspective, most monsters will prefer to let the other monster shift away first. If both marked guys are waiting for the other guy to disengage first, then it's probably not going to happen right away. The first guy taking the ideal (assuming you think it's worth it to take the attack in the first place) group action suffers a not ideal personal consequence. This is by no means an insurmountable problem, but that doesn't mean it won't be a problem for many monsters.
Finally, the group can adjust its tactics and abilities to suit the situation. If people have a problem with rational monsters ignoring the mark and pounding more vulnerable characters, then change something. Increasing the fighter's offense at the expense of defense (ie, not using a shield) makes ignoring the mark more expensive since the fighter hits harder, and makes attacking the fighter a bit more attractive since his defense is lower. Similarly, taking more defense feats on the other characters means that dealing damage to them is somewhat harder, and also potentially somewhat less rewarding if they give up some offense. Continue adjusting until you reach a comfortable equilibrium...
UngeheuerLich
Legend
here is, where we disagree...
I believe N+4 encounters with N+4 soldiers should rarely be used... the system is designed in a wa that equal level monsters hit a bit too good with a bit too little damage... this was done to reduce variation. I can accept it, but i rather use elites of equal level than a monster of 4 levels higher (more damage, lesser to hit, same xp)
Here we don´t disagree that much... a party where a single character focussed too much on offense neglecting all defenses and a character who solely focusses on not beeing hit himself will be unbalanced... but usually such a big discrepancy is done on purpose... at first level you really can´t have a bigger difference than 8 points and this is the most extreme i can imagine... and with the standard point buy this is usually done on purpose by trying to get the 20 in a non AC boosting attack stat... and a paladin using sword and board.
In my party i have still to "cheat" by your definition and i have a paladin with AC 20 and a sorcerer with AC 12 IIRC... Ok, they always complain I try to kill them, but so far this combat system works very well. Even with 8 points between highest and lowest AC...
I won´t discourage the sorcerer however from taking a defensive feat... If he goes out on adventures he won´t do wrong learning to wear protective gear... And making use of cover, concealment and distance...
I wasn't talking N+4 Soldier. I was talking N+4 Skirmisher, Lurker, or Controller at Level+5. So, +20 to hit level 11 PCs which would hit the AC 20 and 21 PCs on a 2 and the AC 24 PC on a 4. The Brute at +18 also hits one of the PCs on a 2 and one on a 3.
Even so, even with same level monsters, big deal. For an N+4 encounter of same level monsters with 6 PCs, that's 12 same level foes. So instead of 1 foe each attacking the Sorcerer and Shaman on average, now there are 2 foes each attacking them.
Two foes that hit on a 4 and 5 respectively will average a lot more damage than one foe that hits on a 2. It's still extremely problematic.
I suspect that it is just a matter of time if you don't "cheat" in their favor. The encounter where the players are rolling poorly and the DM is rolling well should take the Sorcerer down. Again, assuming the DM doesn't go out of his way to protect the Sorcerer by fudging dice rolls or not playing monsters intelligently.
An unarmored Sorcerer who does big damage should be a prime target for monsters. But if the DM doesn't run it that way, then yeah, a delta of 8 at low level is no big deal. The game can be played whatever way the DM wants to play it.
Yup.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Oh you can be sure that i will make the sorcerer a pin cushion if he annoys the monsers too much... but every monster group has to learn it the hard way... its not that monsters learn from dead monsters that the sorcerer has to be taken don first... (if however one monster can flee and warn the monsters of the next encounter... 
to have lesser nubers of foes you should use elites/solos of equal or even lower level. Also if you use more monsters it is usually more diffcult to get many of them into a position where they all can attackthe sorcerer and of course if they surround him, the sorcerer can lay down even more pain (after beeing heled by the leader )
And in the end the sorcerer will have to sacrifice a bit of his offence for defense... it is a learning process for many players. Beeing a glass cannon is always risky^^
@cheating: i admit i have cheated a bit in 3rd edition by attacking the front lines as long as the pain delivered by the back ranks was not too high that going out of formation is worth the trade (and using actions to bullrush the frontline away)
But I am known for having pierced a bow ranger (in 3rd edition) with a huge lance on a charge into the ceiling....
guess what attribute he raiseded and what his next item he tried to get...
And also i have dealt minimum damage when dropping the fighter so that he doesn´t have to be raised after the combat... but -10 hp is a terrible low buffer in high level D&D.
A full offense sorcerer/wizard running into melee not having chosen any defensive spell has never gained the benefit of DM mercy... If you are not built for melee, by all means, stay out of it.
to have lesser nubers of foes you should use elites/solos of equal or even lower level. Also if you use more monsters it is usually more diffcult to get many of them into a position where they all can attackthe sorcerer and of course if they surround him, the sorcerer can lay down even more pain (after beeing heled by the leader
)And in the end the sorcerer will have to sacrifice a bit of his offence for defense... it is a learning process for many players.
Beeing a glass cannon is always risky^^@cheating: i admit i have cheated a bit in 3rd edition by attacking the front lines as long as the pain delivered by the back ranks was not too high that going out of formation is worth the trade (and using actions to bullrush the frontline away)
But I am known for having pierced a bow ranger (in 3rd edition) with a huge lance on a charge into the ceiling....
guess what attribute he raiseded and what his next item he tried to get...
And also i have dealt minimum damage when dropping the fighter so that he doesn´t have to be raised after the combat... but -10 hp is a terrible low buffer in high level D&D.
A full offense sorcerer/wizard running into melee not having chosen any defensive spell has never gained the benefit of DM mercy... If you are not built for melee, by all means, stay out of it.
Last edited:
Sorry, but this is a widely believed fallacy.
What you say is true if one doesn't look at the encounter as a whole. But, it's false if one does.
One or two or even three extra attacks in an encounter, successful or not, by the Fighter doesn't mean that much in the large scheme of things if the enemies take down a Striker or especially a Leader in the process.
The main advantage that the PCs have over the NPCs is healing. If the NPCs take out the Leader, that advantage is wiped out.
A secondary large advantage that the PCs have over the NPCs is striking. Very few NPCs have really good striking capability like Striker PCs do. If the NPCs take out the Striker, that advantage is wiped out.
The role of the Defender is to minimize the number of times that enemies can attack the other party members. Doing a little extra damage in an encounter rarely accomplishes that goal. Forcing or encouraging the enemies to attack the Defender instead of someone else is a lot more effective in accomplishing that goal.
You have this backwards as well. The monsters should not be aware of Combat Challenge until it actually occurs. By definition of what you wrote here, the monsters are aware of Combat Challenge. They shouldn't be. They should only be aware that they are marked.
From a RPing perspective, shifting away from the heavily armored and marking PC to then go attack lighter armored PCs (and especially a PC that is healing) is very desirable. So, the first marked (or even non-marked) monster should want to shift away from a PC that did a mark.
He pays the price of Combat Challenge. That is the first time Combat Challenge is observed in the combat.
But, Combat Challenge is an interrupt. Just like the PCs know when a monster does an interrupt and can no longer do another one right away, so should the monsters know that the Fighter cannot do another interrupt immediately (in reality, the players know and the DM knows, but the net result is the same).
This frees up the board at that point for the rest of the monsters to shift away from the Fighter.
Granted, monsters might be more wary of being the first foe to shift away in later rounds once they have experienced Combat Challenge, but not until it has actually been seen. Course, a strong NPC Leader type should often order lesser NPCs to "stop messing with that one, attack the healer" or some such anyway (for those monsters that can communicate, monsters should be shouting out tactical stuff, just like PCs do).
Yup. No doubt.
Here we agree. The players should adjust tactics based on the tactics of their foes. Even in the middle of an encounter. The Fighter drops his Shield and starts using his Longsword two handed is a perfectly viable tactic mid-encounter.
But, the player will never do this if the DM does not play each monster to the level of its abilities and knowledge. The game becomes more repetitive and predictable if most of the monsters do not ignore the Defender(s) and target other PCs when appropriate and possible.
And all of this should be based on monster knowledge, not DM knowledge. The Warden with a low looking AC in Hide armor might be an early target for monsters until he starts marking them, etc. But most intelligent NPCs should try to get away from PCs that mark them by definition. A marking PC should not often be considered an easy target, rather he should be considered difficult.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Playing to "Win" - The DM's Dilemma
D&D (2024)
4 Things Per Turn
D&D (2024)
Party Balance?