As the DM it’s my job to control all of the monsters during a fight. Each player runs his own character but everyone else involved in the battle is my responsibility. In some cases the Monster Manual provides tactics (albeit very basic tactics), but in the vast majority of situations it’s completely up to me to decide which monster attacks which PC and what power they use.
As the DM I have to decide if the monsters are going to do what’s most tacitly sound (basically, what’s best for the monsters), or are they going to do what seems most fair to the players at my gaming table? For a long time I’ve been doing what’s fair and paid little attention to tactics. But the more I’ve been thinking about this approach the more I think that it’s hurting my game.
D&D isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the DM vs. the players. It’s a cooperative, story-telling experience with a lot of thrilling combat thrown in. Although we often joke about winning D&D when the PCs defeat all the monsters during an encounter, this is obviously not the case. Yet if a PC dies during combat the player certainly feels like he’s lost the game. For this reason I generally try not to pick on one PC and have the monsters gang up on him. After all, no one like it when their PC dies. But am I really doing the players any favours by not having the monsters employ sound tactics?
During my time behind the DM screen there have been occasions when I’ve taken some heat for picking on one PC too often. My desire to keep things at the gaming table civil and positive has really changed the way I DM. Regardless of how intelligent or resourceful some monsters may be, I usually determine which PC to attack by rolling a die and letting fate decide.
Of course there will be times when one PC is the obvious target. In these circumstances it’s usually because the PC put himself in this position. When this situation happens I have no issues making the obvious move and unloading on this PC. The same goes for a defender that’s marked an opponent. Generally I have the monsters attack the defender. It certainly makes things easier for me and it makes the defender feel like he’s doing his job properly (which he is).
Recently I’ve been thinking more and more about my tendency to let the dice decide who gets attacked. Although it gives the players some comfort knowing that I’m not going to just gang up on one guy, it seems like I’m giving them a false sense of what the monsters are truly capable of. It also allows the players to achieve a lot of easy victories without employing good tactics (or any tactics at all in some cases) themselves.
In a few games I’ve run over the past couple of months (many of which were during D&D Encounters) the monsters had powers that inflicted a lot more damage against bloodied opponents. In some cases these attacks also applied other harmful conditions on successful attacks against bloodied foes. In these cases I had the monsters focus their attacks on one or two opponents. Once those PCs were bloodied everyone ganged up on them. After all, if the monster’s best powers can only be used against bloodied target, why wouldn’t they focus their efforts to drop a bloodied enemy as fast as possible rather than try to soften up healthier members of the party still above their bloodied value?
Although the players didn’t like that their PCs were getting mobbed, it forced the rest of the party to come to their aid, especially when they realized just how bad the situation was becoming. When I started to have the monster use smarter tactics, the players really seemed to be caught off guard.
The more I’ve considered using better tactics with my monsters the more I believe that it’s the right decision. After all, if a monster is adjacent to multiple PCs why would he even consider attacking the heavily armored Cleric when there’s a Rogue wearing nothing but leather armor right beside him. Rolling a die to have the monster choose is actually silly. If the creature has an ounce of intelligence he’d naturally attack the softer-looking enemy.
If I applying a little bit of logic to monsters capable of such insights they would be more likely to seek out the PCs that they perceive as most vulnerable or most threatening. A vulnerable opponent would be one that’s the least armored, isolated, or unable to inflict damage (a ranged PC unable to fire his bow safely, for example). The most dangerous opponent would likely be the one dealing the most damage (strikers) or targeting multiple foes simultaneously (controllers). A monster with a really good sense of the battlefield might even seek out the party’s healer or try to corner a ranged attacker forcing him to draw opportunity attacks if he continues using ranged weapons.
I’m sure most of the tactics described above seem pretty obvious and straight forward but I’ve intentionally not used most of them when I’m the DM. The other one that I’ve taken great steps to avoid is attacking a wounded foe to the point of killing him. As I mentioned at the beginning, no one enjoys it when a PC is killed, least of all the player. But if I’m going to have smarter monsters employ smart tactics then why should this one be any more taboo than the rest of the ones I’ve described.
I know that I’m not alone when it comes to pulling punches and intentionally avoiding smart tactics. Many DMs I’ve played with also use dice when deciding which PC to attack. In a game where dice are so important it seems like the right way to decide. But I think this needs to stop. I think DMs need to run the monsters using the tactics that they’re capable of knowing. Whether it’s attacking the least armored PC first or pouring on the damage to one PC until he’s toast, using smart tactics does improve the overall combat experience.
By raising the level of sophistication of your monsters and having them bring their A-game every time, you force the players to do the same. If they realize that the Rogue is always getting attacked because he looks the weakest then they can adjust their own tactics to account for that. It may also serve as a wake up call to some players. Once they realize just how vulnerable they are to monsters that fight smart, they may have to think about retraining a few feats, skills and powers to be more versatile.
Where do you stand on monster tactics? Do you have intelligent monsters fight smart and use sound tactics even if it might result in the death of a PC? How often do you just roll a die to determine which PC is going to be the subject of the next attack? Do you think that having the monsters fight using better tactics will result in better combat or just anger players who constantly fall victim to savage thrashings?
Related reading:
View Comments (23)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 2 3 Next »In general I'm in agreement. I also take into consideration how smart these particular creatures are, and how aware they are (or aren't) of the PC's powers. Things of animal intelligence aren't going to really know who the mage is, or the healer. Mindless things probably won't pay much attention to marks, sometimes to their detriment. Intelligent opponents may know who the strikers and defenders are, and so on, but they won't know what specific powers the PC's have until they are used.
I sometimes use INT checks for the monsters, or PER checks if I'm in doubt about whether they know something or have noticed something.
Highly intelligent enemies will go for all the weak spots, which helps portray them as EVIL!
I frequently use reasonable tactics for opponents of the PCs. I am watchful for the intelligence level of the creatures, but I feel that using tactics makes the game more enjoyable for both DM and players. It adds credibility, builds setting, and generates complications for the team to respond to.
Credibility: the creatures are real and have a level of intelligent thought or instinctive intuition. Humanoids will seek out weaknesses to exploit; dragons will rarely fight to the death; devils and demons may attempt to bargain in the midst of combat.
Setting: the creatures understand the environment and terrain. Humanoids will use advantageous teamwork and terrain features to fight one-on-one; opponents have allies that will pursue adventurers; the villain has more than a few minions and thugs to fulfill his/her/its plans.
Complications: some creatures will actively use optimum tactics against a party that force the party to change their tactics. Opponents team-up against a single PC in order to exploit team tactics or that PC's weakness, to generate a gap in the party's offensive or defensive skills, or to recover a McGuffin.
Welcome to the level of DMing where your monsters have as much life as the players' PCs.
In agreement with you and on par with Toldain, always have foes use their A game.
But what their A game is, it depends.
I gauge the threat level of each PC and who hurt it most last round. I usually retaliate against that PC when using "normal" intelligence. Gang up and bringing the Slayer down is then a priority. Flanking, readying, charging the healer/ranger and all that jazz is used to it's fullest. I don't use metagame knowledge and have them react as i think best.
For beast level, depending on the beast (scavanger, hunter, etc..) well, anything goes but retaliation mostly then evade/run away when hurt.
For high level intelligence, well it's harder since not being Genius level myself. But i try to give the foe a good run for it's money. Since most highlevel intelligence monster will have knowledge of the PCs before hand, or can rapidly evaluate a Pc's abilities, then i use that knowledge against the PC's. Like staying 6 squares away from the range 5 attack. Or issuing commands to other foes to tangle up annoying/dangerous PCs while bringing down another. But, my players are hard to bring down, and usually defeat very hard foes.
If the enemies and monsters are fighting random targets, and not using sound tactics, the players will automatically start metagaming.
"Hey wizard, you'll be most effective if you do *this*, because the monsters would never single you out..."
"I'm down to one hp, and the DM knows it. He would never have three monsters attack me, so I'll do *this*."
If I were to play fetch with my dog and tossed a ball of metal or a ball of leather, he would grab the leather every time. That said, I think only the most mindless of creatures (oozes, swarms, etc) would ignore sound tactics. Animals learn from mistakes quickly, humanoids can reason ahead of time, and the truly intelligent are always plotting and formulating their tactics.
After reading Kenneth McNay's post, I cannot say I have much more to add. He summed up my feelings and the way I use monster tactics within the game.
There's lots of reasons monsters would make non-tactical choices:
-They don't have the knowledge needed (animals don't even know what armor is until they bite it a few times)
-They have a values system (such as "brave warriors fight the strongest enemy") that supersedes tactical thinking
-They simply "choke" in the heat of combat (it is a lot harder to think tactically with sword in your hand than with dice in your hand) or don't understand the situation (such as not anticipating attacks from the hidden thief they have no idea is even there)
So yeah, while some monsters should act quite tactically, many should not.
I like the immersive and believable gameplay that comes from intelligent monsters using sound tactics and the environment to their advantage - I think that's critically important to challenge the PCs.
Often, focusing on the lightly armored PC makes pure tactical sense for the monsters and also heightens the dramatic tension - even though some party members may be temporarily ignored.
That said, like some folks have said, there's also some monsters that aren't very bright or have different natures or motivations. I think it's just as important to play these monsters more instinctively or myopically.
In either case, options that aren't "kill everyone/everything" as part of the encounter goals are just as vital to great and challenging D&D encounters.
I'll largely go with a general "me, too."
As a note, though, I'm currently playing under a DM who uses the "the dice decide who gets attacked" method. One thing I find interesting is that it actually *hinders* our ability to play tactically. Our defender can't reliably draw fire. Our very squishy bard can't just avoid attracting attention. It becomes nearly impossible to lure monsters into a flanking situation. So, as a player, I'd ask you to start playing with better tactics, just so that we can do the same!
I like to mix it up depending upon circumstance. Obviously the lower INT mob won't make the sounded of choices. I recently killed a PC because a non-intelligent mob decided to eat an unconscious PC instead of chase the party. Sometimes, if Minions don't have orders, they go for any target they can get too first and foremost. Secondly they gang up if they can but they are smart enough not to group up for easy fireball disposal. They obviously are aware that they don't have a ton of HP and they don't want to all die in one fell swoop!
Sometimes the non-leader types, have decisions to make. Do I charge the fighter or the barbarian? Well in this case I let Fate decide the Mobs actions. As a DM I know their probablities, but in order to avoid bias, I let fate decide. Who says fate always makes the smarter choice?
Obviously the main bad guys can give orders, which I let the PC's know if they speak the language and can hear or see the instructions, and the main villains (with intelligence) will act based upon what they percieve, or what they know. So if a wizard is dropping area attacks on his cohorts, then the main bad guy would be wise to direct firepower at the wizard in order to make him withrdraw or put him down. Likewise he may order his troops to spread out.
It's all a mix. A little strategy, a little randomness, and sometimes just playing the mobs lack of intelligence can make for some really memorable battles.