Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4989472" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification