Defenders that actually defend

[keterys]

Of course, a fighter who sacrifices defense for greater damage output is providing a more compelling reason to attack him, since he's easier to hit and more dangerous to ignore.

 

[Meeble]

Edit @ KarinsDad

I dont think it would be metagaming if you play it right... I had a fight where a group of lower level monsters all decided to rush the big shiny scary-looking human right out of the gate.

After a couple rounds of being wholly ineffective against this metal-clad behemoth (weapons just bouncing off the armor/easily parried) they decided they would be better served picking an easier target... like that guy in the robes!

 

[Holy Bovine]

My groups have seen a lot of defenders. 2 groups running 2 different games each and we have 5 different defenders currently and used to have 8 before some internal re-shuffling of players to get the numbers evened out (8 players in one game was waaaaay to many!). We have a sword & board fighter, great weapon fighter, a swordmage, a str-based paladin and a cha-based paladin. Of all of them I would say the cha-based pally has the hardest time living up to the defender standards set by the others. I have never seen any of the other defenders fail to be anything less than great at protecting the party and drawing fire down upon themselves. The Cha-based paladin has a hard time getting his marks on people as he has other minor action powers he likes using but even he does a good job getting right in the thick of it and making it hard to ignore him. Probably the most flashy defender is the swordmage - teleporting and smacking the crap out of people is very cool. \
I really think it depends totally on the mindset of the player when they choose defender. They can't be afraid of getting hit and knocked about. As the Str-based pally player I love getting beaten up as it means I'm doing my job and letting the ranger, wizard and warlord dish out the punishment. I felt the same way when I played a 3E Favoured Soul - all party buffing spells and healing without a single offensive spell until I hit 10th level. But man we were unstoppable!

 

[Holy Bovine]

Edit @ KarinsDad

I dont think it would be metagaming if you play it right... I had a fight where a group of lower level monsters all decided to rush the big shiny scary-looking human right out of the gate.

After a couple rounds of being wholly ineffective against this metal-clad behemoth (weapons just bouncing off the armor/easily parried) they decided they would be better served picking an easier target... like that guy in the robes!

See that isn't metagaming. Creatures above animal intelligence should be able to tell they are having no effect upon a target and switching to a different one is perfectly reasonable. I think KarinsDad was saying it would be metagaming (and poor DMing in general) were the creatures to immediately ignore the defender (due to the DM knowing the AC) and attack other targets.

 

[Stalker0]

My take, if the monster is ignoring my defender and going after my buddies...then great I get to be a striker for a round, doing automatic damage, getting a free attack, whatever the warden gets etc.

As far as baseline defender, the shielding swordmage has the best mark by far, and the fighter has the strongest class feature (OAs that stop movement).

The paladin with complete divine has gained a number of ways to mark multiple targets, and now have powers (like hold fast) that can add to the defender schtik if you want.

Warden's have a number of powers that clog up the battlefield, so I think they seem pretty solid as defenders.

 

[sfedi]

See that isn't metagaming. Creatures above animal intelligence should be able to tell they are having no effect upon a target and switching to a different one is perfectly reasonable.

I believe that ANYONE can tell if it's attacks are been ineffective.
Animals, Oozes, Constructs, anything.
These are extremely basic capabilities that any combatant should have.
To be a threat, that is.

This is a common fallacy.

I don't think it's a fallacy, not in the strict term at least.

I you were 100% sure that you would force an enemy to attack you, then of course pumping your defenses would be good thing to do.

If not, then there will always be situations where a high defense will make an enemy choose the other squishier members of the party.
The trivial situation is when an enemy can choose between moving adjacent to you and attacking, or moving adjacent to a striker and attack him.
Where it pays minimal or no cost at all into choosing the easier target.

A middle case is when he's adjacent to the defender and marked/challenged/aegis/etc.

Defenders should have the best AC they can get. They should then take powers like Come and Get It, and Feats like Daunting Challenge, and Mark as many foes as possible, and try to keep as many foes attacking them as possible.

But note that they can't really force them to do that.
They can only force them to a Catch-22 deal: hit a highly durable foe, or suffer damage/conditions for hitting a softer target.
So a trade-off WILL be made.
And this is where an extremely high AC can result in a problem.

Imagine that your Defender can only be hit on a 20.
No one would EVER choose to hit him.

Of course, all what I'm saying depends heavily on when do enemies know the AC of the party members, or at least who's softer and who's harder.

Which, I think, it's the real issue in your argument, and a very important one in the effectiveness of defenders.

On the matter of who's softer and who's harder, I assume that the enemies know this at first glance. Obviously some exceptions exist, but I'm talking in general.
This is as fair as when you, as DM, describe the enemies and drop hints on which enemies are tougher and which are softer, which are mobile, ranged, etc.
I assume you DO tell the players this stuff.

The foe should not know the AC of any PC. If they do, then the DM is metagaming.

Ok, now onto the meat of the argument.

Unfortunately, the game doesn't specify how to manage information at the table.
Worst of all, it doesn't state which parts of the rules assume what information should be handed out and which should be hidden.
In any case, this is the first edition that explicitly says that some things MUST be told: bloodied, effect of conditions and in some Dragon/Dungeon articles, which are minions, etc.

Note that the game works whether you know the opponent's defenses or not.
But if you have information, you can make better choices, and a lot of interesting stuff happens. The game becomes much more richer.

To give a quick example: if you don't know that two enemies gain AC when adjacent, you'll never use your forced movement powers to aid a melee combatant that's attacking them.
It's a lot more fun and interesting if the opponents know of this feature.

I tell the defense score of a target when you have line of sight to the attacker and the target when an attack is made.
This applies to both sides.

I normally don't track what the enemies know, because I usually assume that a Defender is an obvious one, and the monsters don't go for them (most of them at least).
But in some cases, mostly to not be unfair to the players, I track the enemies knowledge and act accordingly.

The secret is to have an algorithm or methodology decided previously on how they act. So you don't metagame and you free yourself of thinking what they should do next.

 

[KarinsDad]

Of course, a fighter who sacrifices defense for greater damage output is providing a more compelling reason to attack him, since he's easier to hit and more dangerous to ignore.

Again, this isn't necessarily true.

How do the monsters KNOW that the Fighter sacrificed defense for greater damage? The DM knows. But, the DM shouldn't necessarily be using that information to make the monsters decisions.

A Fighter does 20 points of damage to a monster. Did the Fighter sacrifice defense for damage? Or, did he just get lucky? How would the monsters know?

And, not every monster has the same Int either. A Controller in the back might be making good tactical decisions, but a Brute in the front might just swing at any threat near it.

Dumb monsters should be played dumb. Average Int monsters should be played slightly smarter tactically, but should still not use metagaming info. Extremely smart monsters should be played to the DMs best ability, even using a bit of metagaming info to ensure that one of their abilities, Int, is used just as effectively as their other abilities. Explain it as you wish: brilliance, experience, survivability, but the smart monsters are no better than average Int monsters if the DM is not really competitive with them.

Orcus has an Int of 25. The DM should pull out every stop he can think of, prepping all kinds of nasty anti-PC stuff, especially in a long running campaign where the players have learned each other's tactics and abilities and have a lot of experience with each other.

Fighting Orcus should result in the PCs looking like the three stooges instead of the well oiled machine that they normally look like. The players should come away with a victory against him thinking that they have gone through the wringer and it should be a years to come memory of how they had to really work together to defeat him. Unlike the hundreds of other encounters, encounters with brilliant foes should be memorable. IMO.


Note: I'm not saying that monsters cannot figure out that cloth armor protects less than plate. But, there are many armors when combined with the protection of a Mark that are as hard to hit as plate (i.e. hide or better is typically that way) and most monsters should rarely think that the lighter armored foes are by definition easier to hit if the monster is marked.

See that isn't metagaming. Creatures above animal intelligence should be able to tell they are having no effect upon a target and switching to a different one is perfectly reasonable. I think KarinsDad was saying it would be metagaming (and poor DMing in general) were the creatures to immediately ignore the defender (due to the DM knowing the AC) and attack other targets.

Precisely.

There are exceptions to this. For example, the monsters have the group surrounded, they are quasi-intelligent and one PC is in Cloth and the Defender is in Plate and Shield.

But, if it is a nearly every encounter thing where the DM has the monsters "decide" to avoid the heavily armored Fighter, then the DM should reevaluate his priorities.

Why exactly is the DM playing the AC numbers (i.e. competing as if all monsters had Int 20+) as opposed to playing the game for the enjoyment of everyone at the table?

Many lesser Int monsters should just focus on the nearest target. The smarter ones should decide on the squishier targets, but should also have to command (out loud) their dumber allies to change targets as well.

 

[Stalker0]

But note that they can't really force them to do that.
They can only force them to a Catch-22 deal: hit a highly durable foe, or suffer damage/conditions for hitting a softer target.
So a trade-off WILL be made.
And this is where an extremely high AC can result in a problem.

I think this is currently only an issue with the assault swordmage and the paladin...and a smaller issue with the warden.

The shielding swordmage's mark is great because it says, "Go ahead and attack my buddy. With my mark on him, the damage you will do is negligible. Sure he's easier to hit, but you still can't hurt him."


The fighter's class ability says, "Just try and leave my side. I'll simply knock you right back to where you started, and you wasted a move action. Your fighting me buddy, just live with it."

With these two, a huge AC is just fine. Whether you try to attack them or go after their friends, they are always defending.

The other defenders don't have it as easy. There main incentive is "Hit me, or take some damage." Unfortunately since monsters tend to have a lot of hitpoints, that's not that much of an incentive. So they may still attack your buddies, though they at least take some pain in the process. Their high AC actually provides more incentive to attack their friends, which can be an issue.

The warden's mark does have some feature to hinder movement (warden's grasp), but since it happens after the attack, its less defendery.

 

[keterys]

How do the monsters KNOW that the Fighter sacrificed defense for greater damage? The DM knows. But, the DM shouldn't necessarily be using that information to make the monsters decisions.

Given that the fighter's choices are pretty much:
1) Trade a shield for a two-handed weapon or dual weapons
2) Use Brash Strike

as far as things that make him easier to hit but give him greater damage. Then sure, it is obvious and the monsters can go ahead and use that information.

Dumb monsters should be played dumb.

Like animals, then, who are entirely capable of picking out the weakest member of a herd, creating and striking during distractions, coordinating group attacks, flanking and diverting a target along an avenue of flight, etc?

Note: I'm not saying that monsters cannot figure out that cloth armor protects less than plate. But, there are many armors when combined with the protection of a Mark that are as hard to hit as plate (i.e. hide or better is typically that way) and most monsters should rarely think that the lighter armored foes are by definition easier to hit if the monster is marked.

So, is it metagaming for the monsters to know that hide can be as tough to hit as plate or metagaming not to know it?

But, if it is a nearly every encounter thing where the DM has the monsters "decide" to avoid the heavily armored Fighter, then the DM should reevaluate his priorities.

Agreed.

 

[KarinsDad]

On the matter of who's softer and who's harder, I assume that the enemies know this at first glance. Obviously some exceptions exist, but I'm talking in general.
This is as fair as when you, as DM, describe the enemies and drop hints on which enemies are tougher and which are softer, which are mobile, ranged, etc.
I assume you DO tell the players this stuff.

Only the obvious stuff. For example, this foe has Chain and Shield and this foe is in Leather. Does that mean that the Leather clad foe is easier to hit? Not necessarily.

Two large crab monsters? No, the players do not know that one crab monster has a higher AC than the other until they actually roll dice and start discovering on their own how easy or hard the monsters are to hit. The players can probably intuit that these are crab monsters from the description, hence, they are probably hard to hit.

To give a quick example: if you don't know that two enemies gain AC when adjacent, you'll never use your forced movement powers to aid a melee combatant that's attacking them.
It's a lot more fun and interesting if the opponents know of this feature.

No, it's more like Chess.

If the players make a Monster Knowledge check, I will tell them that the foes work better adjacent or whatever. But, I don't auto-hand out such information. And, the players might not know that they work better adjacent because they are offensively better or defensively better. They just know that this monster has an effective mode of combat that they should try to avoid. I give generalities with Monster Knowledge checks, not explicit detailed information.

By definition, the game is not more "fun and interesting" if the players know all or even most of the capabilities of the monsters. To me, it's actually more boring because the player's decision making then starts becoming a bit restricted. Who is going to use their Push power when the Slide power is the only one that will help the situation?

I prefer a game where the players learn some monster info from Monster Checks and other monster info by actually fighting the monsters. The game is more enjoyable if there are surprises and unexpected challenges to overcome than it is if the DM lets all of the players know all of the monster capabilities.

I'm not a big fan of spoon feeding monster info to the players.

As a player, I come to the game table to be surprised and thrilled, not to learn new monster capabilities so that I can tactically play to the best of my PCs abilities.

I tell the defense score of a target when you have line of sight to the attacker and the target when an attack is made.
This applies to both sides.

Uggh.

Sorry, but I really wouldn't want to know that as a player. I want to roll a 12 and miss every once in a while, not be encouraged by the DM to change targets to almost always attack the squishiest one for whichever defense I tend to target.

I really do not believe in this level of entitlement that many DMs seem to think players want and need to have.

E.g. The players are entitled to know everything about the monsters. The players are entititled to know everything about a trap. The players are entitled to most treasure that is explicitly suited for their PCs.

I believe in a balanced approached. The players know some stuff, they don't know a lot more than they know. That maintains mystery. That forces the players to not take encounters for granted. That gives players a sense of accomplishment for what they achieve.