Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7409817" data-attributes="member: 97077">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: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.</blockquote>

Verification