So, when the party encounters a monster (or group of monsters) how do you decide who the monsters go after in a combat situation? I've been managing it somewhat "MMO Style", where the monsters will simply attack the party member closest to them until one party member does a noticeably higher level of damage than the others/becomes a bigger threat (i.e. "gains aggro") at which point they will focus their attention on him or her. This seems to work in most common combat situations, but I'm afraid of making some of my more squishy players (rogues, casters, etc.) paranoid about using their skills or holding back because they know they'll get mobbed up on if they get some crits or really start outpacing the damage of the rest of the party.
So, how do you do it? Are there any guidelines or best practices for deciding how monsters decide their targets? Thanks for any advice.
I would say it depends on a few factors, like the monsters they are facing. Beasts would have more pack mentalities like wolves while solo monsters may just pick on the biggest threat while trying to keep distance between it and the others. If it’s more intelligent monsters, then they should strategize just as much as the players would: ranged attackers taking cover and trying to take out the ranged players while their stronger soldiers cover the front. If one player shows themselves as a particular threat, then the monsters should react accordingly: taking cover, focusing fire or even taking a hostage for example.
As DM you also get to fudge the rolls a bit. If you find one player is getting unfairly picked on and can tell the player is frustrated, shift the focus to a different player. Some players want to feel that threat though, so it also comes down to reading your players. My general rule of thumb is the monsters should behave like the players would: either focus fire on the biggest threat, or trying to divide and overwhelm the opposition. It’s also fun to work in a bit of story: maybe work it so the fighter hit the ogre and caused his necklace of skulls to fall off and break, enraging the ogre, so he only cares about pummelling that fighter and ignores everyone else. You have the freedom to decide and describe how the players attacks will affect the monsters and this can lead to fun role play.
I base it on what my conception of that particular monster/s would do given it’s level of intelligence. E.g. zombies just go for the nearest thing with brains. Wild beasts I might have “xyz smells like dinner” or “xyz disturbed the litter and now mum is specifically angry”.
For mobs with actual levels of intelligence, they’ll employ a strategy. If it means squishies get targeted, then so be it. The party knows that the enemy aren’t fighting for fun, and so they need to coordinate their formation and defensive strategies to cope. You want combat to present real danger so that the outcome feels like a win.
(some of) The factors I use (in some kind of order) are:
Who is close, relative to the monster.
What would you do in this situation, if you were playing this as a PC? (considering intelligence of course)
What type of attack is it? (ranged fighters, for me tend to attack more-or-less at random. I've been known to use a D6 to decide who the target of a specific roll is)
What is my/their goal for the encounter? (Are they angry? Are they out hunting for trophies? Do they want something valuable?)
How much noise is everyone making? (This is a GREAT way to justify focusing on the raging barbarian over the rogue throwing knives)
Is the rogue intimidating them? (Sometimes a knife through the eye, instakill is a very good reason NOT to "mob the rogue")
Who looks hurt? (from wolves, to sharks, to goblins, showing (or even feigning) weakness is a good way to get yourself targeted)
It differs for different monsters - deliberately, so as to cause there to be more variety, which in turn keeps any one thing from "getting old" - and revolves around why the monsters are where the party has encountered them and what the monsters desire out of the encounter.
So goblins that are defending a place they've made a den and want to keep because they like it will fight as dirty as they can, exploit any weaknesses they can, and go for whatever seems most likely to get the party to go away for good (which often means they'll go for the kill).
An owlbear, on the other hand, is likely just interested in a meal and will go for the smallest and/or weakest looking party member to try and incapacitate and escape with them - and they aren't likely to intentionally stick around long enough to die to get a snack. However, invade its den full of eggs, and an owlbear will definitely fight to the death.
But in all the mixing it up and making things varied because variety is the spice of life, I also make sure to remember that players have picked particular sorts of characters because they want a particular sort of experience - so leaning towards attacking the heavily armored high-HP characters more than the others, even when it seems like backwards reasoning because "kill the squishy first" makes the odds of killing the whole party higher, enhances the enjoy-ability of combat overall. Especially true because either the DM isn't genuinely trying to kill characters no matter how much they claim they are trying to use monsters at their most effective ability, or the characters have no hope of survival.
So, when the party encounters a monster (or group of monsters) how do you decide who the monsters go after in a combat situation? I've been managing it somewhat "MMO Style", where the monsters will simply attack the party member closest to them until one party member does a noticeably higher level of damage than the others/becomes a bigger threat (i.e. "gains aggro") at which point they will focus their attention on him or her. This seems to work in most common combat situations, but I'm afraid of making some of my more squishy players (rogues, casters, etc.) paranoid about using their skills or holding back because they know they'll get mobbed up on if they get some crits or really start outpacing the damage of the rest of the party.
So, how do you do it? Are there any guidelines or best practices for deciding how monsters decide their targets? Thanks for any advice.
Slug
I would say it depends on a few factors, like the monsters they are facing. Beasts would have more pack mentalities like wolves while solo monsters may just pick on the biggest threat while trying to keep distance between it and the others. If it’s more intelligent monsters, then they should strategize just as much as the players would: ranged attackers taking cover and trying to take out the ranged players while their stronger soldiers cover the front. If one player shows themselves as a particular threat, then the monsters should react accordingly: taking cover, focusing fire or even taking a hostage for example.
As DM you also get to fudge the rolls a bit. If you find one player is getting unfairly picked on and can tell the player is frustrated, shift the focus to a different player. Some players want to feel that threat though, so it also comes down to reading your players. My general rule of thumb is the monsters should behave like the players would: either focus fire on the biggest threat, or trying to divide and overwhelm the opposition. It’s also fun to work in a bit of story: maybe work it so the fighter hit the ogre and caused his necklace of skulls to fall off and break, enraging the ogre, so he only cares about pummelling that fighter and ignores everyone else. You have the freedom to decide and describe how the players attacks will affect the monsters and this can lead to fun role play.
I base it on what my conception of that particular monster/s would do given it’s level of intelligence. E.g. zombies just go for the nearest thing with brains. Wild beasts I might have “xyz smells like dinner” or “xyz disturbed the litter and now mum is specifically angry”.
For mobs with actual levels of intelligence, they’ll employ a strategy. If it means squishies get targeted, then so be it. The party knows that the enemy aren’t fighting for fun, and so they need to coordinate their formation and defensive strategies to cope. You want combat to present real danger so that the outcome feels like a win.
(some of) The factors I use (in some kind of order) are:
It differs for different monsters - deliberately, so as to cause there to be more variety, which in turn keeps any one thing from "getting old" - and revolves around why the monsters are where the party has encountered them and what the monsters desire out of the encounter.
So goblins that are defending a place they've made a den and want to keep because they like it will fight as dirty as they can, exploit any weaknesses they can, and go for whatever seems most likely to get the party to go away for good (which often means they'll go for the kill).
An owlbear, on the other hand, is likely just interested in a meal and will go for the smallest and/or weakest looking party member to try and incapacitate and escape with them - and they aren't likely to intentionally stick around long enough to die to get a snack. However, invade its den full of eggs, and an owlbear will definitely fight to the death.
But in all the mixing it up and making things varied because variety is the spice of life, I also make sure to remember that players have picked particular sorts of characters because they want a particular sort of experience - so leaning towards attacking the heavily armored high-HP characters more than the others, even when it seems like backwards reasoning because "kill the squishy first" makes the odds of killing the whole party higher, enhances the enjoy-ability of combat overall. Especially true because either the DM isn't genuinely trying to kill characters no matter how much they claim they are trying to use monsters at their most effective ability, or the characters have no hope of survival.
Thanks for the tips, everyone. I really appreciate it. ^_^
Slug