High AC and encounters

[iserith]

Speaking as another DM on the same page as @jgsugden, I think that's fine. However, if every monster always automatically skipped past him to attack softer targets, that would be different.

Again, speaking only for myself, I try to choose targets for my monsters that they would choose. I use, or try to use, the targeting methodology that they would use. So, for instance, a kobold is probably going to target the easiest looking enemy. An orc warlord will probably engage the toughest looking warrior, but might lose interest after a couple of rounds of trading zero damage. An ooze will probably attack the closest creature; a wolf is likely to strike at an enemy with its pack mates surrounding it, and a zombie will probably try to hit whatever hit it last.

Sometimes there's more to drawing fire than just standing there dodging. The cleric in the OP is more likely to draw fire if he moves into the enemies' formation, if he shows that he's a threat instead of just dodging, if he uses an action to insult his foes. There are lots of ways, at least in my game and my experience, to increase the odds that you'll be the target of choice of the baddies.

Occasionally? Or as a consistent thing? Frequency matters.

Occasionally: no problem. Some monsters might be fully aware they can't reliably beat heavy armor with their weapons. Or they might go after other PCs for other reasons. For example, animated dead might mob the rogue who opened a small chest in a crypt, thereby defiling their place of rest.

Consistently: I'd see that as a problem.

I figured this would be a likely (and reasonable) response. My take on that is that I don't know what a monster would do. I only know what they could do, which is whatever I say they do, for whatever reason I say they do it. And I can come up with all manner of acceptable fictional reasons on the fly why a monster would avoid the heavily-armored PC to attack someone else. If I can, anyone can. So knowing this, as a player, I don't think I could become annoyed that the DM was specifically not targeting me. After all:

He's not taking any damage, is he? He's free to cast Bless with no worry of his concentration being interrupted, for instance....

Right. My investment in heavy armor and the feat means that I have effectively deterred monsters from attacking me which is in some ways better than having the monsters swing, miss most of the time, but hit me sometimes. (If the party lacks any other tanks, it's less good. Assuming I'm a team player.) Freed from that threat, I don't have to worry about losing Concentration and probably don't have to take War Caster.

I don't really feel it's the role of the DM to provide some kind of payoff for a player's investment as if there's an obligation to have all these monsters attack a character and miss because his or her player took heavy armor and a feat. Rather, I think it's on the player to make that investment pay off. In my Planescape game, given half a chance, I will target the wizard or a squishy NPC sidekick (or a barbarian in a pinch). The paladin and the fighter are armored up. So they take it upon themselves to position themselves better, using grappling, shoving, dragging, spells, etc. to arrange the combat in such a way to make themselves the only viable targets. They goad, talk smack, and use the terrain to keep themselves in the line of fire. I think it makes for better scenes when they have to work for it and a better payoff when they achieve victory.

That's just me though.

 

[jgsugden]

Out of curiosity, if the DM had the monsters give up on attacking him and switch to beating up the less-armored wizard or rogue, would that qualify as "embracing it" to you?

Don't metagame for or against it. Don't select foes that are especially good or bad against the PC. Then, have the enemies do what they'd do when facing the PCs. So, for some monsters, ignoring the tin can to attack the fleshy wizard makes sense. At other times, the orc chief will relish the challenge of ripping the armor off the foolish cleric that thought it would protect him.

Tell a good story.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

He got ringed by 6 goblins who gave three advantage.

- Use the help action. 6 goblins surround the fighter but 3 of them help the others.

Why would you do such a thing!

Seriously though, it is completely disadvantageous for 3 of the goblins to give advantage to the identical 3 statblocks next to them, rather than just all 6 attacking without advantage (I'm assuming identical statblocks).

Unless those were intended as ways of making it easier on the PC without a less experienced player picking up on it.

Two identical actions without advantage are always superior to one of the exact same action with advantage.

 

[MNblockhead]

Don't forget about mob rules, which specify the number of opponents for a guaranteed hit. (DMG Ch. 8, Running the Game: Combat: Handling Mobs).

 

[Harzel]

My take on that is that I don't know what a monster would do. I only know what they could do, which is whatever I say they do, for whatever reason I say they do it.

I am not sure I am understanding what you meant here. You seem to be using "would" and "could" in a somewhat (to me) unusual meaning or context. Are you saying that what you decide the monster does is, by definition, the one and only thing that the monster could do? I mean, I suppose...

"If you know [that the Universe will be destroyed by a Tralfamadorian pilot who presses a button]," said Billy, "isn't there some way you can prevent it? Can't you keep the pilot from pressing the button?"

"He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way."

If, on the other hand, the monster could do (in the sense of "in the abstract is capable of") any of several things, then the fact that you managed to choose one of those indicates to me that you in loco monstri do, in fact, know what the monster would do.

 

[TheSword]

How high is high?
+7 Splint
+2 Shield
+1 Forge
+2 Shield of Faith
That makes 22 which is high for a level 2 character but not out of the realms of possibility. After all the shield of faith is concentration; the shield is reducing their weapon damage; and if they use dodge it’s their action gone for the round.

if the cleric is regularly spending resources to make themself invulnerable are they really contributing. How do the other players feel about this?
- They get hit because the monsters realise it is hopeless to target the cleric
- The fights last longer because the cleric is dealing less damage because their resources are all in AC
- instead of casting bless the cleric is making themself even harder to hit

If the player is min-maxing further than this, dipping into fighter for defensive fighting style, or other shenanigans then I would probably have a quiet word. Not attacking the character just makes them even more invulnerable.

Luckily this shouldn’t be getting dramatically higher and you can avoid the issue getting worse with careful magic item selection.

 

[Warpiglet]

Why would you do such a thing!

Seriously though, it is completely disadvantageous for 3 of the goblins to give advantage to the identical 3 statblocks next to them, rather than just all 6 attacking without advantage (I'm assuming identical statblocks).

Unless those were intended as ways of making it easier on the PC without a less experienced player picking up on it.

Two identical actions without advantage are always superior to one of the exact same action with advantage.

It actually landed a few hits but I see the math error. Frankly I would have done better with one shover and one helper to grant advantage that to the other 4 or as u say just roll six attacks if identical.

 

[Oofta]

To me it depends on the opponents. Are we talking creatures that regularly cooperate and in general have good tactics? Knock the target prone or have most opponents ignore them. Monsters that just attack on sight? He's in the lead, he gets mobbed.

Most combats may be somewhere in the middle.

In addition, if the cleric isn't doing any damage because they're constantly defensive the tactic would probably only work for a round or so in most cases. After attacking the cleric and realizing that the other party members are doing things that hurt, most opponents would logically ignore that guy that's effectively a hard-to-hit statue and go after the people causing damage. Why would they not?

This has nothing to do with "rewarding a character" or "metagaming". It's simply trying to run monsters that use tactics that are reasonable for their level of intelligence, wisdom and style while reacting to the situation they are presented with. Giant spider? If it moves, kill it. Hobgoblins? Intelligent and from a regimented military background they'd probably go after the soft high value targets of opportunity first.

 

[Warpiglet]

To me it depends on the opponents. Are we talking creatures that regularly cooperate and in general have good tactics? Knock the target prone or have most opponents ignore them. Monsters that just attack on sight? He's in the lead, he gets mobbed.

Most combats may be somewhere in the middle.

In addition, if the cleric isn't doing any damage because they're constantly defensive the tactic would probably only work for a round or so in most cases. After attacking the cleric and realizing that the other party members are doing things that hurt, most opponents would logically ignore that guy that's effectively a hard-to-hit statue and go after the people causing damage. Why would they not?

This has nothing to do with "rewarding a character" or "metagaming". It's simply trying to run monsters that use tactics that are reasonable for their level of intelligence, wisdom and style while reacting to the situation they are presented with. Giant spider? If it moves, kill it. Hobgoblins? Intelligent and from a regimented military background they'd probably go after the soft high value targets of opportunity first.

QFT! To start, hobgoblins pushed our brave cleric-tank out of the doorway. No way they would trade blows with a 22 AC.

He was only one of two characters who entered the room. As a result, the enemies went after these two (included goblin, a goblin shaman and hobgoblins while others plunked arrows doing little damage from a distance.

I assumed the in your face pair would get attacked for the most part.

My only mistake was having the shaman attack the other character and not cleric-tank. She almost went with poison spray on him and at the last minute I attacked another target with inflict wounds and landed...a 20! It would have killed him outright, but he was an Aasimar and this was necrotic damage!

Oh the whims of fate and dice!

 

[Oofta]

Oh the whims of fate and dice!

The gods of the almighty D20 are fickle and do not bend to the will of mortals, even DMs.