Combat paradigms?

[classy one]

Unlike an MMO which has a hate system, DnD is generally run on the whim of the DM. Some DMs have their NPCs attack the strongest looking PC first to cripple the part's defensive capabilities, others go for the one that deals the most damage to improve their own defense, while still others go for the weakest looking PCs to deprive the party of actions.

Does any of the DMs on this board have a paradigm that they follow (other than what is listed in the MM entry)? Is it based on the Int of the NPC? Their numbers and firepower? I'd like to adapt some kind of program so I don't have to use my brain so much during encounters and increase consistancy.

[Medic!]

In some splat books the monster entries will actually lay out what the creature prefers to do round by round. My rule of thumb is if it's not an intelligent creature it goes after the closest PC or whoever did it harm first, unless there's an obvious choice (Dire wolf vs. tibbit for example)

With intelligent monsters I usually go off of appearances. If it's an enemy with predominant abilities that provoke fortitude saves it attacks the PC in robes or leather over the big guy in platemail with a sword, etc. If I'm playing a particularly intelligent enemy with foreknowledge of the PCs' tactics or capabilities (i.e. the BBEG wizard) I'll pick out the character who presents the most real danger and play zap the adventurer.

In some situations I just select the victim randomly. Baphomet's entry from the FC says he begins combat by using Maze on the strongest looking enemy, in that instance I had 6 PCs so I had them number off then rolled a d6 in plain sight. True to the saying, the dice didn't lie, and the Paladin with 10 intelligence, who had been slamming baddies throughout the crawl got nailed. Sadly it was not his day for natural 20s and he was out for the entire fight =(

[Diarmuid]

I generally try to cater NPC tactics to the intelligence and information of the NPC's.

Animals, or other low Int monsters simply attack the first thing they see and will potentially move to a new target if they are getting whomped on, or if they are having difficulty with their current target. "Pack" style animals will try to get themselves into flanking if an opportunity presents itself.

Mindless undead are similar but generally wouldnt switch targets unless commanded to, or their current target becomes unavailable.

For smarter monsters, creatures, NPC's with classes they generally try to use whatever tactics play to their strengths. If the PC party wizard is easily discernible in his robes, pointy hat, and staff then they would probably go after him first if they think they can survive against the beatsticks while doing it.

[Amphetryon]

I generally use a two-part threat analysis paradigm, with an exception noted after:

For those monsters with an INT score of less than 8 (an admittedly arbitrary cut-off) or monsters specifically noted as arrogant or poor tacticians, I have them attack the party member who either is closest if attacking first, or who did the most damage to the individual monster in the actions leading up to the monster's turn in the Initiative. This often leads to either attacking the party's Fighter-analog if the monsters get Initiative, or monsters spreading their attacks amongst multiple PCs, depending on their own tactics.

For monsters with an INT at or above 8, I give credit for at least rudimentary knowledge sharing and tactical sense, such that the guy in robes is likely to be perceived as a bigger threat than the guy in plate mail with a spiky bit of metal in one or more hands, and attacked accordingly. Focus-fire is more likely unless someone proves to be a significantly larger threat than the initial analysis indicated. For instance, if the 'guy in robes' is spec'ed as a BFC specialist and buffer without much offensive punch himself, the monsters could well leave off attacking him after a round or two in favor of the bear riding a dire bear and summoning more bears.

The exception to the above? Animals known or described as having a pack mentality. With them, I'll have them mimic what Marlin Perkins taught us all those years ago on Wild Kingdom, separating out the weakest party member and ganging up on him.

[nedz]

I use different tactics for different opponents.

Wolves might circle the party and gang up on whoever breaks ranks.

Dragons could circle round using a similiar tactic.

Both of these have the effect of creating tension as well as being effective.

A Napolean type opponent would pound them with artillery of some kind (spells obviosly), then send in a mass horde to test the parties strengths and to pin them down whilst positioning their mobile shock troups for the kill. If the beatsticks are pinned down fighting a horde of goblins they can't defend the casters.

I actually use a wide variety of encounter types with plenty of meeting engagements.

[Mystify]

It depends on what the monster is. intelligence plays in, the creatures knowledge plays in, the terrain plays in, etc. A bear will probably just charge in and start full attacking, wolves will circle around and try to execute coordinated strikes to bring down the weakest person, a gelantonous cube will just ozze along at the party, mindless creatures will attack whatever hit it last, dumb creatures will attack whatever hit it hardest. Higlhy intelligent creatures will execute brilliant tactical strikes, coordinating with each other to neutralize threats and create vulnerabilities for their teammates to exploit, etc.
There is no simple routine to go through, just consider how the monster you are running would be handling the situation. I've had players trivalize encounters with golems by exploiting their priorities; they were guarding a bank vault, and they are supposed to stop anyone from getting in, and neutralize intruders. The bard cast expedious retreat, and ran past them near the door. They broke combat to chase after him. He runs back to the other side of the room, and they come back. He runs behind them again, and they follow. He literally ran circles around them, and confused them. If it was an intelligent enemy, they would not have fallen for such a trick, but mindless, preprogrammed golems were not able to cope.
This variety of tactics employed also keeps things more interesting for the players. If all of the enemies use the same tactics, it will get repetitive even if they have different abilities.

[classy one]

I see that many people say Int score plays a factor but my question is also: what would an intelligent monster/NPC generally do? I can see both sides of the argument.

1) kill the weak ones first: this often translates to the ones in light and medium armor and what we as PCs would most likely do, since we have some metagame knowledge to know that the lightly armed ones are either strikers or BFC users. But there are practical reasons for killing the lightly armored ones as well. Mainly it is more bang for the buck. They are easier to hit and more likely to die, and if they do die, that's one less threat that I need to worry about.

2) kill the tank first: tank isn't just the damage sponge, but also the damage dealer. I see a lot of people describe the tank as a lump of plate mail waiting to be hit. But in reality a tank is a freaking tank. It's got thick armor that is resistant to small arms fire, and a huge turret that takes down buildings. Many have a heavy machine gun mounted on for even more power. If this sounds like Battlefield 3 then you are getting the picture. If you don't take out the tank first, you will get run over. It doesn't even take a genius to know that one tank can own a whole infantry unit. One the tank falls morale drops, there shield is gone and all that is left is just soft targets.

3) customize towards the weaknesses of the party: this is obviously the most intelligent way to do it. Hit the clumsy ones with Ref save or dies, get the dumb one with a Will save or die and the frail one with a Fort save or die. But who do they target first? The tank or the weak ones? What is the "smart" method of picking?

[Gwendol]

I factor in intelligence, experience, and morale. Fanatics will fight to the bitter end, no matter what. A humanoid warband will likely yield if they find themselves hopelessly outclassed. Animals might not attack at all, and rather slink away if they can.
An experienced, intelligent monster (or group of, I favor groups over a single due to the unbalanced number of actions) will use any means possible for gaining advantage (splitting the group, using traps, terrain, environment, etc) and will attempt to strike at the greatest perceived threat first. Which that is depends on the monster. Many humanoids have a healthy respect for arcane and divine casters, and especially if they have an adept or shaman among their ranks they will go for them first.

[kulosle]

The important thing here is how smart they are.

int attacks...
0-3 closet opponent
4-9 the one doing the most damage to him.
10-13 the one doing the most damage overall, use some tactics like flanking
14-17 the support, the mage, survivors by order of damage, use good tactics
18+ When the NPC are this intelligent they have some kind of plan that I think of before hand. They've usually gathered information on them before hand as well.

[Thurbane]

When I DM, it depends on the intelligence/cunning of the enemy, and their knowledge of the party.

Any enemy with moderate intelligence, who can identify casters or other area control/mass debuff characters, will seek to attack and shut them down ASAP.

For less intelligent monsters, I usually have them attack the nearest PC, unless there is an obvious indicator that it would be in their best interest to attack someone else (an animal will seek to attack a lightly armored character to one in full plate, and won't attack the Wizard with his Fire Shield up.

[Killer Angel]

A Napolean type opponent would pound them with artillery of some kind (spells obviosly), then send in a mass horde to test the parties strengths and to pin them down whilst positioning their mobile shock troups for the kill.

Staying on this, Napoleon also said "I like to face coalitions; hit hard the weak point, the others will crumble".
This can be applied when facing a group of adventurer, and it works, but the mortality risk for the weaker PCs is even higher than the usual.