So first of all I don't consider DnD a combative experiance, it is not DM vs Players everyone is telling a story, but, having come to DnD late in my TTRPG lifetime (about 20 years playing loads of other systems before I even looked at a DnD rulebook) it is far more combat heavy then other systems in terms of rules, skills, and gameplay so to get the most out of the system even pure roleplay groups need to experiance combat on a fairly regular basis and from my experiance quickly get into the idea of using flanking rules, various combat feats, area effect magic or magic that forces saving throws vs rolling to hit etc to improve abilities in combat. If you want an RP only game then there are far better systems for that in my opinion.
So my question is, how much do you as DM's use these rules and abilities against them. How often do you have enemies move to flank and give each other advantage, attack with an area effect like a fireball (even catching downed characters or the casters own allies in it), or give enemies feat type abilities like warcaster, sentinel etc, not to make it a you vs them but to make encounters more interesting and add a different level of complexity, how often do you present things like enemy rogues who can attack and then hide to gain advantage, or enemy healers who keep there allies in the fight.
Or do you try and make it that only your players take advantage of these things and play your own monsters and enemies as simply as possible?
Think I tend to the former the latter being "monsters and enemies as simply as possible?" though the intelligence and lore of the monster/enemies plays a role ie Kobold's love their trap setups mindless Zombies on the other hand will stand in line to enter the choke point the players are using to not get overwhelmed... unless there is some dastardly intelligent mind behind controlling them in which case a nasty surprise is probably creeping up behind the characters while they are distracted with the Zombies...
But I'll cut monster/enemy HP mid battle fug fail a monster/enemy save if things are dragging on to long or it seems a super dramatic moment.
think in the end fun is the decisive ingredient that includes the DM's if combat is dragging on because of complexity or a drag because it's not challenging and people aren't having fun something's amiss. this balance very much depends on YOU the DM and what your players enjoy so experiment and if you find mid encounter it's not what you hoped it would be you have all the power to end it and adjust things next time
edit update Oh I do fain frustration and annoyance that "My Monsters" are not pounding the players characters to a bloody pulp and will cackle gleefully when one of "My Monsters" scores a critical and it has my players gulping at just how many HP just went bye bye... just thought that aspect of the theatrical "DM vs Players" is kind of related to your question
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
Anything the player characters can do, the monsters have the potential to do depending on their intellect and cunning. If the players want to benefit from flanking that's fine, but it only takes the average pack animal to figure out how to maneuver behind someone and flank. If they want called shots ("I strike at his kidneys," "I shoot his leg to slow him") the monsters will probably be smart enough to go for the most vulnerable/visible squishy parts of the body. I don't intend on this being adversarial, as others say the DM versus the players (especially when the DM can bring down the sword of Damocles above the party's head), but it keeps the playing field reasonable. Enemies don't get steamrolled, and the players take caution with their actions.
So I say let the players decide... on the proviso that sword swings both ways. Honour the decision, and if people don't enjoy it after a while remove the double-sided buff from the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Honestly, I try to think about what different tactics the players have at their disposal. At the end of the day I'm hoping the player characters survive. Putting them at risk though does often serve the storytelling. So, I'll often think about what tactics and approaches they've used already and what abilities and spells they have at their disposal. That means that often I'm thinking about what encounters can be thrown at the party that will change up their combat style. For example, after a run of basic encounters I threw a canyon at the group allowing them to use a lot of different tactics they'd not used before, of course I had anticipated that and so was prepped for two smaller groups of characters.
If the PCs are up against encounter enemies who are intelligence 10 or above, I take it all bets are off and they'll act as intelligently as they can. For 5 and fewer the enemies often I'll have just keep attacking the same enemy they attacked first or who attacked them first. Between 5 &10 INT I'll often have them act in ways that mean they'll show some tactics.
All that said, I do try to utilise the full stat block and ability set where appropriate. So, taking the Treant Sapling, I'm going to use it's ability to awaken trees. I'm going to use both ranged, and melee. I expect players will utilise their full range of skills and will do the same when acting as the enemies.
Our table rule is, if a PC can do it, monsters/villians can do it. If the players want to use a tactic that provides an interaction that isn't covered in a rule, I ask the group if it were used against them, would they feel it a fair encounter. Their answer guides the use. Same with game rules. If I come up with a new monster or some ability that might feel like a *gotcha* ability, I try to telegraph that as much as is possible. Sometimes to the point of NPCs outright telling the PCs about the ability prior to the encounter. Same goes for travel and survival rules.
If the party focuses fire on a monster (and why wouldn't they, really.. there's only one target sometimes... it's expected.) then so will villians and monsters. If the bad guys can't get to someone to cause damage in an efficient manner, they hit what they can. Kinda like fishing, you catch what you can. My players know this is how things work. Might not work for every table, but it works for mine.
Edti: And yes, this does mean that if the bad guys are seeing whack-a-mole of party members, they will try to interrupt that sequence in one form or another. Healer or healed.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Absolutely. Allowing flanking and then not having monsters use it just seems like you're making the game way too easy. The thing about increasing difficulty through tactics instead of through raw stats like HP or AC is that players can make tactical choices of their own to minimize or neutralize those tactics. It not only encourages them to be smarter about combat but also greatly empowers them when they do.
I am a big fan of keeping fights interesting and dynamic, and having "puzzle monsters." Encounters are typically winnable without figuring out the most effective tactic, but can take up uite a bit more resources.
There's specific tactics for NPCs that I'm reluctant to use because they're extremely unfun for PCs, most notably hard CC such as banishment, but I don't rule things out.
There's specific tactics for NPCs that I'm reluctant to use because they're extremely unfun for PCs, most notably hard CC such as banishment, but I don't rule things out.
I think Banishment depends on how big your playing party is, I DM now for 7 (was 8) so Banishment only reduces action economy by 1/7 so there is plenty of actions around to force concentration checks, or even just kill the caster. I do accept that if it is a party of 4 then losing 1 character to banishment, if there are other enemies around, suddenly makes the encounter almost an insta TPK, and the characters are almost forced to stay because they know if they try to escape then there fellow party member will reappear on there own. In that situation If I am putting Banishment in an encounter then I am basing the encounter on 1 less party member for CR and really thinking about how I make the encounter about dealing with the Banishment.
I think Banishment depends on how big your playing party is, I DM now for 7 (was 8) so Banishment only reduces action economy by 1/7 so there is plenty of actions around to force concentration checks, or even just kill the caster. I do accept that if it is a party of 4 then losing 1 character to banishment, if there are other enemies around, suddenly makes the encounter almost an insta TPK.
The issue isn't with how the spell changes the results of the fight, I can easily balance around that. The issue is that telling a player "You can just sit and do nothing while the rest of us resolve this fight without you" isn't much fun for the player.
This question fed out of a though I had on the back of https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/dungeon-masters-only/148337-issues-with-killing-my-players-characters
So first of all I don't consider DnD a combative experiance, it is not DM vs Players everyone is telling a story, but, having come to DnD late in my TTRPG lifetime (about 20 years playing loads of other systems before I even looked at a DnD rulebook) it is far more combat heavy then other systems in terms of rules, skills, and gameplay so to get the most out of the system even pure roleplay groups need to experiance combat on a fairly regular basis and from my experiance quickly get into the idea of using flanking rules, various combat feats, area effect magic or magic that forces saving throws vs rolling to hit etc to improve abilities in combat. If you want an RP only game then there are far better systems for that in my opinion.
So my question is, how much do you as DM's use these rules and abilities against them. How often do you have enemies move to flank and give each other advantage, attack with an area effect like a fireball (even catching downed characters or the casters own allies in it), or give enemies feat type abilities like warcaster, sentinel etc, not to make it a you vs them but to make encounters more interesting and add a different level of complexity, how often do you present things like enemy rogues who can attack and then hide to gain advantage, or enemy healers who keep there allies in the fight.
Or do you try and make it that only your players take advantage of these things and play your own monsters and enemies as simply as possible?
Think I tend to the former the latter being "monsters and enemies as simply as possible?"
though the intelligence and lore of the monster/enemies plays a role ie Kobold's love their trap setups mindless Zombies on the other hand will stand in line to enter the choke point the players are using to not get overwhelmed... unless there is some dastardly intelligent mind behind controlling them in which case a nasty surprise is probably creeping up behind the characters while they are distracted with the Zombies...
But I'll cut monster/enemy HP mid battle fug fail a monster/enemy save if things are dragging on to long or it seems a super dramatic moment.
think in the end fun is the decisive ingredient that includes the DM's if combat is dragging on because of complexity or a drag because it's not challenging and people aren't having fun something's amiss.
this balance very much depends on YOU the DM and what your players enjoy
so experiment and if you find mid encounter it's not what you hoped it would be you have all the power to end it and adjust things next time
edit update
Oh I do fain frustration and annoyance that "My Monsters" are not pounding the players characters to a bloody pulp and will cackle gleefully when one of "My Monsters" scores a critical and it has my players gulping at just how many HP just went bye bye... just thought that aspect of the theatrical "DM vs Players" is kind of related to your question
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
Anything the player characters can do, the monsters have the potential to do depending on their intellect and cunning. If the players want to benefit from flanking that's fine, but it only takes the average pack animal to figure out how to maneuver behind someone and flank. If they want called shots ("I strike at his kidneys," "I shoot his leg to slow him") the monsters will probably be smart enough to go for the most vulnerable/visible squishy parts of the body. I don't intend on this being adversarial, as others say the DM versus the players (especially when the DM can bring down the sword of Damocles above the party's head), but it keeps the playing field reasonable. Enemies don't get steamrolled, and the players take caution with their actions.
So I say let the players decide... on the proviso that sword swings both ways. Honour the decision, and if people don't enjoy it after a while remove the double-sided buff from the table.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Honestly, I try to think about what different tactics the players have at their disposal. At the end of the day I'm hoping the player characters survive. Putting them at risk though does often serve the storytelling. So, I'll often think about what tactics and approaches they've used already and what abilities and spells they have at their disposal. That means that often I'm thinking about what encounters can be thrown at the party that will change up their combat style. For example, after a run of basic encounters I threw a canyon at the group allowing them to use a lot of different tactics they'd not used before, of course I had anticipated that and so was prepped for two smaller groups of characters.
If the PCs are up against encounter enemies who are intelligence 10 or above, I take it all bets are off and they'll act as intelligently as they can. For 5 and fewer the enemies often I'll have just keep attacking the same enemy they attacked first or who attacked them first. Between 5 &10 INT I'll often have them act in ways that mean they'll show some tactics.
All that said, I do try to utilise the full stat block and ability set where appropriate. So, taking the Treant Sapling, I'm going to use it's ability to awaken trees. I'm going to use both ranged, and melee. I expect players will utilise their full range of skills and will do the same when acting as the enemies.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Our table rule is, if a PC can do it, monsters/villians can do it. If the players want to use a tactic that provides an interaction that isn't covered in a rule, I ask the group if it were used against them, would they feel it a fair encounter. Their answer guides the use. Same with game rules. If I come up with a new monster or some ability that might feel like a *gotcha* ability, I try to telegraph that as much as is possible. Sometimes to the point of NPCs outright telling the PCs about the ability prior to the encounter. Same goes for travel and survival rules.
If the party focuses fire on a monster (and why wouldn't they, really.. there's only one target sometimes... it's expected.) then so will villians and monsters. If the bad guys can't get to someone to cause damage in an efficient manner, they hit what they can. Kinda like fishing, you catch what you can. My players know this is how things work. Might not work for every table, but it works for mine.
Edti: And yes, this does mean that if the bad guys are seeing whack-a-mole of party members, they will try to interrupt that sequence in one form or another. Healer or healed.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Absolutely. Allowing flanking and then not having monsters use it just seems like you're making the game way too easy. The thing about increasing difficulty through tactics instead of through raw stats like HP or AC is that players can make tactical choices of their own to minimize or neutralize those tactics. It not only encourages them to be smarter about combat but also greatly empowers them when they do.
I am a big fan of keeping fights interesting and dynamic, and having "puzzle monsters." Encounters are typically winnable without figuring out the most effective tactic, but can take up uite a bit more resources.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
There's specific tactics for NPCs that I'm reluctant to use because they're extremely unfun for PCs, most notably hard CC such as banishment, but I don't rule things out.
I think Banishment depends on how big your playing party is, I DM now for 7 (was 8) so Banishment only reduces action economy by 1/7 so there is plenty of actions around to force concentration checks, or even just kill the caster. I do accept that if it is a party of 4 then losing 1 character to banishment, if there are other enemies around, suddenly makes the encounter almost an insta TPK, and the characters are almost forced to stay because they know if they try to escape then there fellow party member will reappear on there own. In that situation If I am putting Banishment in an encounter then I am basing the encounter on 1 less party member for CR and really thinking about how I make the encounter about dealing with the Banishment.
The issue isn't with how the spell changes the results of the fight, I can easily balance around that. The issue is that telling a player "You can just sit and do nothing while the rest of us resolve this fight without you" isn't much fun for the player.
Yes as DM i may use the same the tricks and tactics as the players What's good for the Goose is good for the gander
My players? Tactics? Oh, you silly fool, my players are mush-brained troglodytes!
"Ignorance is bliss, and you look absolutely miserable."