|
2 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2011 - 11:14AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I would also include: Don't allow players to goad you into treating monsters unfavorably just to, 'trigger a mark; gain extra damage; etc.'
Some battles might be purposely planned to give the players a chance to completely dominate the opponents with their PCs' best abilities, but certainly not all combats should roll that way.
I don't believe in arbitrarily denying players the benefit of their features. If you can't challenge them without doing so, you're not building encounters well.
I see this a lot with defender marks. I don't agree that having monsters always trigger a mark is that much of an advantage, as it means the enemy is attacking the defender's ally and probably damaging someone with much fewer and weaker surges than the defender. But I also don't see that not triggering a mark denies the player the benefit of the character's features. A defender's mark is effective whether or not the mark is triggered, so the feature can't be denied, unless the creature is able to shrug off marks, which most can't.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2011 - 12:22PM
#32
|
|
|
I would also include: Don't allow players to goad you into treating monsters unfavorably just to, 'trigger a mark; gain extra damage; etc.'
Some battles might be purposely planned to give the players a chance to completely dominate the opponents with their PCs' best abilities, but certainly not all combats should roll that way.
I don't believe in arbitrarily denying players the benefit of their features. If you can't challenge them without doing so, you're not building encounters well.
I see this a lot with defender marks. I don't agree that having monsters always trigger a mark is that much of an advantage, as it means the enemy is attacking the defender's ally and probably damaging someone with much fewer and weaker surges than the defender. But I also don't see that not triggering a mark denies the player the benefit of the character's features. A defender's mark is effective whether or not the mark is triggered, so the feature can't be denied, unless the creature is able to shrug off marks, which most can't.
My problem isn't with the defender's mark punishment never triggering, or with the reverse. it's with DMs that do one or the other simply in order to try and make the battle harder/the character less effective.
IMO, most monsters should stick to the defender unless given a reason not to. And no, IMO, the relatively weak punishment of some marks is not a good reason.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2011 - 12:39PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
My problem isn't with the defender's mark punishment never triggering, or with the reverse. it's with DMs that do one or the other simply in order to try and make the battle harder/the character less effective.
If one were to crunch the numbers, one might find that one or the other choice is "better" for the monsters, but by and large I'm going to go out on a limb and say that one can't really make the battle harder or the defender less effective, no matter the choice of triggering it or not. Once it's marked, there's no bad deal for the defender. The monsters might immobilize him, or make him ineffective some other way, but attacking either him or his allies plays into his hands either way.
IMO, most monsters should stick to the defender unless given a reason not to.
Those reasons are called the other characters.
And no, IMO, the relatively weak punishment of some marks is not a good reason.
Why not? Why should the monster have to stick to the defender when the defender's damage is paltry and the monster's damage is less effective against the defender's higher HP? Monsters plausibly know how much damage they can take so why not trigger a minor mark to possibly take out a striker? (The answer is that there are plenty of plausible reasons, if that's what the DM wants to do, but the players don't necessarily get to dictate who the monsters attack.)
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2011 - 10:34PM
#34
|
|
|
It's not a legit reason because the monster isn't invincible, and there's a guy waving his sword in the monster's face. If we're not metagaming, you just don't turn your back on that.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 18, 2011 - 10:46PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
It's not a legit reason because the monster isn't invincible, and there's a guy waving his sword in the monster's face. If we're not metagaming, you just don't turn your back on that.
But there's probably also someone aiming a dagger or an arrow at him, or a bigger sword, or who has him cursed. At some point, even a "stupid" monster is going to realize that it's worth risking a little extra hurt (from something it can't hurt very well) to get away from or stop an even bigger hurt. That point can vary for every DM and for every one of every DM's monsters, but I think it's fair to say that anything can be marked can at least roughly weigh the pros and cons of violating that mark.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 19, 2011 - 7:17AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
It's not a legit reason because the monster isn't invincible, and there's a guy waving his sword in the monster's face. If we're not metagaming, you just don't turn your back on that.
But there's probably also someone aiming a dagger or an arrow at him, or a bigger sword, or who has him cursed. At some point, even a "stupid" monster is going to realize that it's worth risking a little extra hurt (from something it can't hurt very well) to get away from or stop an even bigger hurt. That point can vary for every DM and for every one of every DM's monsters, but I think it's fair to say that anything can be marked can at least roughly weigh the pros and cons of violating that mark.
I think that the ultimate determining factor of when a monster will flee from combat, is what is behind it, if, in the next room, a balor is torturing some human prisoners, its inner sanctum guards will either willingly die (to avoid having to face their master after failing him) or are so loyal (or brainwashed) that they'll fight to the death. On the same token, a bear will fight to protect its young, even if that means death.
A goblin, however, that has nothing behind other than possibly another PC, will probably run once its lost over half its health...or whenever it realizes it cant win.
I am a level 29 Necro-POSTER!
"...And then the cheese came."
|
|
|
