Is it cheating if the DM doesn't attack the tank, and instead goes for all the squishy targets?
In some ways d&d is a game, and games have expected rules and outcomes, like the character that builds a tank will get attacked first.
Or is it fair for the DM to play a low INT monster smart and attack the higher threat targets?
Other urls found in this thread:
DM should play to the stats, as far as I'm concerned.
A dumb creature will attack the nearest, or the one that just really hurt it (which is a great way to excuse avoiding the tank, if it's resulting in every combat being a walk over).
A smart one will attack the squishies, if they're squishy they'll keep range from the melee, LoS ranged etc.
Some cunt shoots a fireball at a wild beasts face it''ll probably bite its face off.
The GM cannot, by definition, cheat.
They can, however, be a shitty GM.
The problem is that, depending on context, what makes a GM shitty in one group might make them good in another.
It's all about knowing the groups expectations and preferences and being able to play off them to create an enjoyable experience. Anything you do in the name of that is fair game, anything you do which doesn't contribute to that is a mistake you should fix, or you're just being a bad GM.
Play a not-shitty edition which gives tanks the ability to actually defend their teammates, instead of relying on the GM playing along.
I agree that if the players are expected to not metagame then the DM should do the same. That means a group of spiders won't understand priority targeting and will act like an animal. That also means an orc warlord is going to do everything he can to kill the party's cleric from the start of the fight.
>Players not metagame
>When I have a player that routinely looks up monster stat blocks in the MM and records their hp
That's an easy fix, just tweak one thing in every monster from the book that you use. Trolls are not damaged by fire, it actually increases their regeneration, etc.
If they autism and flip the table then kick them out.
The trade-off is that edition just flat out sucks and isn't any fun, regardless of what arbitrary design goals it met.
>The trade-off is that edition isn't to my preferences and isn't any fun for me to play, regardless of what arbitrary design goals it met.
ftfy, and I'm sorry for your loss.
Give your tank Sentinel.
That way your GM can't really excuse attacking the squishies since no creature logically would knowing full well that they're taking extra damage everytime they try.
A smart creature would go "oh shit attacking anybody else gives this guy a free hit on me"
A dumb creature would go "REEE THIS GUY HIT ME HIT HIM BACK"
Also your squishies should be staying out of movement range of the enemies anyway. Keep your casters like 45 feet away from enemies whenever possible. Spells that require 30 feet, they move closer, cast, then move back.
If they HAVE to be within an enemies movement range, they better plant themselves RIGHT next to a tank who had protection or preferably, sentinel
Everyone that burnt meat know that fire char them into black matter. And most of all fire bad, no touchy.
If you are doing with all the monster then you are an arse. It natural to go for the weakest looking prey, but a fire shooting beastie in leather blubber are not ideal. If two-three ally are distracting the frontline, it normal to penetrated deeper as the weaker and easier prey are mostly there, unless it a range fighter.
A "tank" should be forcing the enemy to attack him first, the GM has no obligation to make enemies retarded just because some imported video game logic dictates that they should attack the fat guy with a pool noodle instead of actual threats.
This. It's about managing group expectations. If the group expects all encounters to be played like the DM is trying to get grandmaster in party wipes, then the group will build and position such that the tanks can prevent the enemies from getting to the backline. If you have a roleplay heavy group who isn't considering that far, or bad at wargames, it'd be pretty shitty to "outplay" them too hard.
The DM's job is to create a situation where fun can happen, and the party's job is to take that hook. You can't really "cheat" if that's the attitude and dynamic.
>Thinking real world physics must apply to a magical creature.
Do you make your dm not let Trolls regenerate too because modern science can't explain it?
Not that user
Characters observing that "fires burns" does not necessarily mean a slavish devotion to purely real world physics.
If the characters observed a troll burning to death, your right. He is implying because fire burns other things that nothing can be immune to fire damage.
>He is implying because fire burns other things that there is no reason to assume a thing could be immune to fire damage.
FTFY
There is no reason not to try burning something that won't stop regenerating.
If that doesn't work, try squishing it with a boulder, decapitation and burial, drowning, acid, or encasing in lead.
No reason to think any of that wouldn't work.
But burning is a pretty basic method of getting rid of things.
Try that first.
Yes, but not as a generality.
In circumstances in which the DM willingly refuses to allow an outcome, but also refuses to inform the players of any circumstances preventing normal ability/spell/action usage, you are cheating by ignoring the entirety of the game.
Recently, my DM decided to hold an auction for magical items. Ignoring that he has no sense of the value of gold or magic, he also refused to let players influence the outcome of anything whatsoever, magically rolling "nat 20s" as he said, sequentially to resist or stop anything we did.
>you are cheating by ignoring the entirety of the game.
the gm can change the rules of the entire game.
So no he cannot cheat.
Didn't cheat, did do a bad job.
The DM might very well have their thumb on the scales, but that's so easy to do using existing in-game methods that getting heavy handed is almost never the best option.
By using nonsensical values of items and setting up a scenario in which the players have no impact, he was a bad DM. By lying to players, not characters, and ignoring the rules of the game, he cheated and broke the implicit social contract between player and DM. It's perfectly fine to not let things work that a player attempts. Not having a good reason makes you a bad DM. Lying about the reason in a meta sense, "nat 20" on every save is cheating.
>Using the MM
This is why marching order and formation are important
This guy has a pretty decent view
>nat 20's mean anything on saves
Sorry bud got some bad news for you.
Also how were you trying to influence an auction? I hope you weren't using magic.
As long as the DM isn't singling out a player for personal reasons or making the game less fun for everyone he should do whatever he feels appropriate
This guy gets itAnyone playing the game is metagaming. Every action taken in the game is made after considering factors outside of the context of the game world like mechanics, stats, DM's methodology, Group dynamics and disposition, Genre conventions and a slew of other things that are then retroactively justified using in character knowledge and reasoning.
Though I will acknowledge that people have a different threshold for what they consider metagaming or at least what they consider too much metagaming
Probably trying to actually BUY things maybe?
>A smart creature would go "oh shit attacking anybody else gives this guy a free hit on me"
Really smart, tactically oriented creatures like hobbos would probably sacrifice one individual to go after the squishies. Regardless of sentinel feat, everyone only gets a single reaction.
So by influence you meant participate.
Purchasing anything, influencing the price of anything beyond "above what you have", influencing demand by "accidentally" being overheard, magic on patrons in an attempt to get them to disregard an item we wanted, interacting with NPCs at the auction before, during, and after other than the shopkeep esque person at the desk, picking the pockets of someone who seemed against us for some reason rogue got booted when it got noticed, but we hadn't been interacting with them in a noticeable way so we were fine to stay. In the end we got the one item the DM wanted us to have, and we paid a fraction of what it was worth and it had no demand whatsoever.
Wrong. A wild beast would most likely 'fucking flee immediately'. They are usually defending territory or hunting, wild animals don't have a deathwish.
reciprocate the actions of the party
if they are willing to act in character for combat and not be powergaming douchebags, then return the favor by having the enemies behave that way as well, goblins suffer battleshock when you cut down their numbers, hounds attack who is closest but archers prioritize targets, etc
if the party as a whole are being munchkins, then show them 2 can play at this game, and give them more than they bargained for and play it like a round of FF tactics, doing everything in your power to outmaneuver them as if you were playing a wargame
>I have a player that routinely looks up monster stat blocks in the MM and records their hp
That's why Good DMs lie.
I had a party out hunting a griffin. One party member keeps giving me the "shitty eyes" look whenever the local NPCs talk about how fucking scared they are of griffins. He and I both know that he knows griffins are only, like, a CR 2 creature in the book.
Then something ripped the roof off the longhouse and he realized that 'griffins' can sometimes look an awful lot like 'dragons'.
There's nothing wrong with local NPCs being afraid of CR2 monsters, though.
A wolf is what, CR1/4? And just one of those will easily rip a peasant a new one. Damn straight a commoner would be scared shitless of a griffin.
True enough, but several of the NPCs were spellcasters using variations on the Mage NPC statblock, which the PC in question deduced. It seemed out of character for such characters to be afraid of one griffin.
In that case, it would be a bit odd that mages would mistake dragons for griffins.
I wasn't clear, my apologies. It was a Griffin, but I gave it a Dragon statblock to fuck with a metagaming fuckstick. I realize now I wasn't being clear, sorry.
Oh okay, that makes sense.
>Is it cheating if the DM doesn't attack the tank, and instead goes for all the squishy targets?
No, but at least half the time, it wouldn't make sense in the course of the game.
The GM plays the npcs, and should do so appropriately. Further, not every version of D&D is such that a squishy is so much a threat they need to be focused down first, or is even easy to bring down in exchange for being deep in the pcs ranks where they can be mobbed.
It's the same reason pcs usually don't pull such a move, the risk does not equal the reward unless you treat npcs as faceless pawns who exist to kill pcs.
He looks like a giant faggot so I'm not going to listen to him.
It's generally seen as bad form if the DM starts attacking the players, especially if he's armed.
>Is it cheating if the DM doesn't attack the tank, and instead goes for all the squishy targets?
No, if the squishy target is in a position that can be opened up to an attack, it's their fault for not hiding behind sufficient cover or setting up defenses for themselves.
>Or is it fair for the DM to play a low INT monster smart and attack the higher threat targets?
An animal generally has shit INT yet most animals in nature are smart enough to only go after targets that they know they can easily beat, it's why predators in the wild generally go after the young, the old, and the sickly as opposed to the strongest Bison in the herd.
>The trade-off is that I have shit taste and refuse to read the book.
FTFY
Would have been pretty funny to have idiot villagers call it a griffon when it's not at all that, though
it would have been funnier if it were a dragon named griffin
Minions don't have to mindlessly attack the Bulk Squatthrust of the group, even idiots will eventually figure out that they might want to gun for the squishy prick in the back providing spell support and/or healing Bolt Vanderhuge.
my fighter's name is Slab Bulkhead
>Wrong. A wild beast would most likely 'fucking flee immediately'. They are usually defending territory or hunting, wild animals don't have a deathwish.
WRONG.
In editions that don't use morale rules, unintelligent animals continue to wait for their turn in combat and always attack until dead.
Why?
The real question is - can you bring yourself to tank Arthas? There's got to be another way!
He didn't say thing about having any tanking abilities. A sensible person sees that and thinks high hp fighter or barbarian.
>Is it cheating if the DM doesn't attack the tank, and instead goes for all the squishy targets?
No, it isn't, as long as the enemies are intelligent. Dogs won't care if you're a paladin or an old wizard.
A bandit will try to shoot or stab the wizard first.
There are no tanks in 5e, to expect the DM to attack the most heavily armored guy first means you're retarded.
The DMs role in the game, is to make it as enjoyable as possible for his players. That does mean challenging them, and throwing them surprises from time to time, but only as long as they can avoid a "rocks fall, everyone dies" situation.