I have a way that I do my battle combat for my players. I play a PC within the campaign we are doing also. I have been given advice from a fellow DM who has been doing it long term. I am still new (maybe a month... like 5 sessions so far). I'm getting better every session, but battle tends to throw me off sometimes. Especially in terms of who is targeted, as one of my players has suggested a few times that I never target or attack my character. I have a clear set of rules set down. (1: always attacks last person to attack them, even if it means moving/disengaging with another. 2: if not attacked, closest player within range, if more than 1 are within range and about the same they roll d20 lowest is attacked. 3: if none in range, all players roll d20 and lowest is the one they move towards)
Also keep in mind, in our battles we have 3 PCs. 1 Ranger, 1 Paladin, and 1 Wizard/Cleric (me). The paladin is all melee and almost always rushes in to the fray (he has a high AC so he works a smidge like a tank). The ranger varies, sometimes he likes to rush in duel wielding his shortswords, other times he will stay back and use his bow and arrow. The Wizard/Cleric never rushes in at all, only engages in melee combat when forced to (like when she hits them with a spell and they come after her), she stays back and uses ranged spells.
What I wanna know is... how do you do it? How do you more experienced DMs select who is targeted by monsters in battle? What factors do you take into account for your bad guys?
First off, I do not have a character of my own in the party. NPCs are not DM characters... and I don't really have NPCs long-term either, though one may be present for a fight or three. I do run one player's character as an NPC when he is not present, but in combat, I have the other players make decisions for him and roll to hit and damage for him.
Secondly, I think having objective rules is a good idea, but as you may have seen the objective rules don't always work. In general, I try to avoid focus fire against the PCs. It is the most efficient way to win, and it could be argued that NPCs and intelligent monsters *should* do it, at least realistically. However, when monsters are victims focus fire doesn't it suck for the DM since there are other monsters on the field, and you are running the whole battle. But being a victim of focus fire and getting KOed early in the battle sucks as a player, because you sit there with nothing to do but make death saves. So except against very nasty enemies, I tend to just attack the nearest target or a target that did something to make them made (killed an ally, did a lot of damage, etc). Also if someone appears to be an obvious threat, they go after that individual Often the most obvious threat is the Wizard or Sorcerer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
For low-intelligence monsters like undead, I just have them attack whoever is closest.
For slightly-more-intelligent monsters like beasts, they'll usually go for the biggest threat, as determined in a straightforward way (most intimidating-looking PC, or whoever dealt them the most damage or hit them last.).
For monsters of human-level intelligence, they'll do what seems to be the best tactics available (including focus-fire, ambushes, or targeting the squishies). With one exception - they'll usually be very loathe to allow an AOO against them.
You can also look up the monsters on https://www.themonstersknow.com/ for some inspiration - that blog goes through a bunch of different monsters and based on their statblocks and their description proposes tactics they might employ. (Not in the sense of "what's optimal", but in the sense of "what would it make sense for this monster to do with the abilities and intelligence it has.)
As the others have mentioned, for me, it is usually about what makes the most sense for the NPCs from a role play perspective.
Depending on circumstances, intelligence, nature of the opponents ...
- attack the closest target
- attack the closest target not already engaged
- attack the spell caster if possible (this is especially true for intelligent opponents who recognize the threat represented by the caster standing at the back ... this is doubled if the caster is known to be concentrating on a spell).
- attack a priority target - if they attack a character a few times and can't hit them then they might take an opportunity attack and run off to attack someone who might be easier (again depends on intelligence)
- attack the healer - if there is a character that keeps healing the party they become a target
- attack downed characters - this can be a bit controversial but intelligent opponents who realize that there is a healer who is bringing unconscious opponents back into the fight with healing spells might well decide to attack unconscious characters to make sure that they stay down. Of course this kills the character if it is successful but it is a consequence of dealing with an intelligent opponent who sees enemies popping back up after going down.
- if there are a number of equally attractive opponents - e.g. creature making an attack with 3 adjacent targets - then they might just attack whoever they attacked the last round, otherwise I usually just roll a die to see which one they attack
- intelligent opponents will focus their attacks if possible (intelligent opponents often use the same tactics as PCs might).
----
In addition to these actions, the combat also develops differently depending on where the attackers come from. They don't always come from the front. Sometimes they come from the sides, the rear or even all around.
Ranged characters who always stand in the back are often targeted less frequently but situations do develop where they do become targets at least in the games I run or play in ...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a way that I do my battle combat for my players. I play a PC within the campaign we are doing also. I have been given advice from a fellow DM who has been doing it long term. I am still new (maybe a month... like 5 sessions so far). I'm getting better every session, but battle tends to throw me off sometimes. Especially in terms of who is targeted, as one of my players has suggested a few times that I never target or attack my character. I have a clear set of rules set down. (1: always attacks last person to attack them, even if it means moving/disengaging with another. 2: if not attacked, closest player within range, if more than 1 are within range and about the same they roll d20 lowest is attacked. 3: if none in range, all players roll d20 and lowest is the one they move towards)
Also keep in mind, in our battles we have 3 PCs. 1 Ranger, 1 Paladin, and 1 Wizard/Cleric (me). The paladin is all melee and almost always rushes in to the fray (he has a high AC so he works a smidge like a tank). The ranger varies, sometimes he likes to rush in duel wielding his shortswords, other times he will stay back and use his bow and arrow. The Wizard/Cleric never rushes in at all, only engages in melee combat when forced to (like when she hits them with a spell and they come after her), she stays back and uses ranged spells.
What I wanna know is... how do you do it? How do you more experienced DMs select who is targeted by monsters in battle? What factors do you take into account for your bad guys?
First off, I do not have a character of my own in the party. NPCs are not DM characters... and I don't really have NPCs long-term either, though one may be present for a fight or three. I do run one player's character as an NPC when he is not present, but in combat, I have the other players make decisions for him and roll to hit and damage for him.
Secondly, I think having objective rules is a good idea, but as you may have seen the objective rules don't always work. In general, I try to avoid focus fire against the PCs. It is the most efficient way to win, and it could be argued that NPCs and intelligent monsters *should* do it, at least realistically. However, when monsters are victims focus fire doesn't it suck for the DM since there are other monsters on the field, and you are running the whole battle. But being a victim of focus fire and getting KOed early in the battle sucks as a player, because you sit there with nothing to do but make death saves. So except against very nasty enemies, I tend to just attack the nearest target or a target that did something to make them made (killed an ally, did a lot of damage, etc). Also if someone appears to be an obvious threat, they go after that individual Often the most obvious threat is the Wizard or Sorcerer.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I completely agree here.
For instance, a starving goblin might have the gusto to attack a downed player, but a Lich King wouldn't waste a turn on something so trivial.
Everything has different tactics, and as such, not every monster targets the same type of player.
Though, when at a loss, monsters can always attack the PC closest to them, or the character that just beheaded their friend.
"Players beware, the DM is here!" - Probably Some 80's Cartoon
Yeah, it generally depends on the monsters.
For low-intelligence monsters like undead, I just have them attack whoever is closest.
For slightly-more-intelligent monsters like beasts, they'll usually go for the biggest threat, as determined in a straightforward way (most intimidating-looking PC, or whoever dealt them the most damage or hit them last.).
For monsters of human-level intelligence, they'll do what seems to be the best tactics available (including focus-fire, ambushes, or targeting the squishies). With one exception - they'll usually be very loathe to allow an AOO against them.
You can also look up the monsters on https://www.themonstersknow.com/ for some inspiration - that blog goes through a bunch of different monsters and based on their statblocks and their description proposes tactics they might employ. (Not in the sense of "what's optimal", but in the sense of "what would it make sense for this monster to do with the abilities and intelligence it has.)
As the others have mentioned, for me, it is usually about what makes the most sense for the NPCs from a role play perspective.
Depending on circumstances, intelligence, nature of the opponents ...
- attack the closest target
- attack the closest target not already engaged
- attack the spell caster if possible (this is especially true for intelligent opponents who recognize the threat represented by the caster standing at the back ... this is doubled if the caster is known to be concentrating on a spell).
- attack a priority target - if they attack a character a few times and can't hit them then they might take an opportunity attack and run off to attack someone who might be easier (again depends on intelligence)
- attack the healer - if there is a character that keeps healing the party they become a target
- attack downed characters - this can be a bit controversial but intelligent opponents who realize that there is a healer who is bringing unconscious opponents back into the fight with healing spells might well decide to attack unconscious characters to make sure that they stay down. Of course this kills the character if it is successful but it is a consequence of dealing with an intelligent opponent who sees enemies popping back up after going down.
- if there are a number of equally attractive opponents - e.g. creature making an attack with 3 adjacent targets - then they might just attack whoever they attacked the last round, otherwise I usually just roll a die to see which one they attack
- intelligent opponents will focus their attacks if possible (intelligent opponents often use the same tactics as PCs might).
----
In addition to these actions, the combat also develops differently depending on where the attackers come from. They don't always come from the front. Sometimes they come from the sides, the rear or even all around.
Ranged characters who always stand in the back are often targeted less frequently but situations do develop where they do become targets at least in the games I run or play in ...