Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GSHamster" data-source="post: 3882749" data-attributes="member: 20187">This seems to be a paradox to me.If the fighter is just as dangerous as the mage, the monster should attack the mage because the mage is more fragile. If the fighter is less dangerous than the mage, the monster should definitely attack the mage because it poses the greatest threat and is more fragile. If the fighter is more dangerous than the mage, I feel very sad for the mage.So why should the monster attack the fighter?&nbsp; Wouldn't the superior tactic in all cases be to attack the mage?Put a party of skilled PCs against a similar party of NPCs.&nbsp; Watch what they do.&nbsp; Most of the time, they will target the healer and wizard types first, because that's the best strategy. Yet that's not fun. Most DMs instinctively realize this, and have monsters use sub-par tactics, attacking the fighters because they are closer, and not targetting the healers/wizards unless forced to.&nbsp; They basically keep a mental &quot;threat list&quot;.3E tried to solve this paradox with Attacks of Opportunity, punishing the monster for ignoring the fighter.&nbsp; MMOs use threat mechanics* to determine who the monster attacks, which becomes the basic gameplay.So that's the basic question.&nbsp; If a new DM asks you &quot;How do I determine which PC to attack?&quot;, what would be your response?* They also use threat because collision detection is computationally expensive, especially with latency. Another reason is collision detection would allow griefing on a massive scale -- simply stand in doorways and refuse to let people by. Or fight a monster that can't hurt you badly in the doorway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GSHamster, post: 3882749, member: 20187"] This seems to be a paradox to me. If the fighter is just as dangerous as the mage, the monster should attack the mage because the mage is more fragile. If the fighter is less dangerous than the mage, the monster should definitely attack the mage because it poses the greatest threat and is more fragile. If the fighter is more dangerous than the mage, I feel very sad for the mage. So why should the monster attack the fighter? Wouldn't the superior tactic in all cases be to attack the mage? Put a party of skilled PCs against a similar party of NPCs. Watch what they do. Most of the time, they will target the healer and wizard types first, because that's the best strategy. Yet that's not fun. Most DMs instinctively realize this, and have monsters use sub-par tactics, attacking the fighters because they are closer, and not targetting the healers/wizards unless forced to. They basically keep a mental "threat list". 3E tried to solve this paradox with Attacks of Opportunity, punishing the monster for ignoring the fighter. MMOs use threat mechanics* to determine who the monster attacks, which becomes the basic gameplay. So that's the basic question. If a new DM asks you "How do I determine which PC to attack?", what would be your response? * They also use threat because collision detection is computationally expensive, especially with latency. Another reason is collision detection would allow griefing on a massive scale -- simply stand in doorways and refuse to let people by. Or fight a monster that can't hurt you badly in the doorway. [/QUOTE]

Verification