PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Categorizing Monsters



PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-22, 08:41 PM
One of my weaknesses as a DM is coming up with good tactics for monsters, especially on the fly. This extends to finding combinations that synergize well.

Now that I have compiled statistics (https://1drv.ms/x/s!AjKe-YTGxfZWtXdXEPdNGlYEmWlc) on all 552 monsters from the MM and Volos, I'm going through and trying to give each one tags (inspired by 4e's monster categories) that describe a decent default set of tactics. I need help coming up with the categories and their default tactics.

Here's my thoughts so far:

Brute: Big heavy melee. Usually not very smart, these charge in and focus on smacking the nearest enemies. Usually melee heavy with lower AC and high damage (relative to their CR).
Controller: Usually stands off and imposes conditions or difficult terrain, etc. on enemies. Usually pretty squishy and lower than average direct damage.
Skirmisher: Hit and run like light infantry. Tries to get behind the front line to hit squishies. Melee, high damage/low health but often some kind of other defense.
Mob: Really only dangerous in large groups. Surround and beat enemies to death. Quantity over quality.
Defender: High health/AC, these try to prevent enemies from attacking their squishies. Often lower damage.
Blaster: Ranged non-physical damage. Often AoE capable or spell-casters. Usually squishy.
Sniper: Ranged physical damage. Usually mobile and with weak melee capabilities, but not as squishy or AoE capable as blasters.
Support: Not much good alone, these are generally under-CR'd since they lack heavy combat capabilities. Great for supporting others though.
Ambushers: These usually aren't much good unless they get the drop on the PCs, and usually have the features to back that up (false appearance, damage transfer, stealth boosts, etc).

Modifier (can appear on any):
Solo--these are legendary creatures that could stand up to a party of appropriate APL by themselves.

Are there others? Better breakdowns of basic tactical roles? I'm planning to annotate the spreadsheet of stats with these roles, so they'll be available to anyone.

Unoriginal
2018-01-22, 09:46 PM
I think it's not exactly relevant to try to classify the monsters like this. It worked in 4e due to the way fight rules and encounter designs were made, but in 5e it risk to pigeonhole the monsters when they really have more potential than this. Not to mention that the monsters' fluff will influence their behavior in a way that their statblocks doesn't particularly mention (ex: the average kobolds using traps).

I think we need to look into a system that describe what the monster can do, before we can ascribe roles to them.

Something, for exemple, like:

Combat Behavior:

-Berserk: this creature attacks constantly, with little thought for retreat or defense

-Aggressive: this creature is likely to be on the offensive, but understand the need to defend itself and will retreat if threatened

-Defensive: this creature weights its options, wait for others to attack, and defend itself or others.

-Fearful: this creature is looking to get out of harm's way as often as possible. Is not likely to challenge enemies directly unless they have an overwhelming advantage or no other choice

-Tactical: this creature weights its options, has a clear understanding of the combat situation, and will do its best to adapt to the circumstances to damage the enemy and assure their survival, switching between

For example, Gnolls would be Berserk, Hill Giant Aggressive, Goblins Fearful and Hobgoblin Tactical.

bc56
2018-01-22, 09:48 PM
I would pare the categories down.

I would say
Ambush
Skirmish
Tank
Ranged
Support
Caster
Swarm

And add a second system which rates general willingness to fight to the death.

Cowardly
Rational
Confident
Foolhardy
Stupid

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-22, 09:53 PM
I think it's not exactly relevant to try to classify the monsters like this. It worked in 4e due to the way fight rules and encounter designs were made, but in 5e it risk to pigeonhole the monsters when they really have more potential than this. Not to mention that the monsters' fluff will influence their behavior in a way that their statblocks doesn't particularly mention (ex: the average kobolds using traps).

I think we need to look into a system that describe what the monster can do, before we can ascribe roles to them.

Something, for exemple, like:

Combat Behavior:

-Berserk: this creature attacks constantly, with little thought for retreat or defense

-Aggressive: this creature is likely to be on the offensive, but understand the need to defend itself and will retreat if threatened

-Defensive: this creature weights its options, wait for others to attack, and defend itself or others.

-Fearful: this creature is looking to get out of harm's way as often as possible. Is not likely to challenge enemies directly unless they have an overwhelming advantage or no other choice

-Tactical: this creature weights its options, has a clear understanding of the combat situation, and will do its best to adapt to the circumstances to damage the enemy and assure their survival, switching between

For example, Gnolls would be Berserk, Hill Giant Aggressive, Goblins Fearful and Hobgoblin Tactical.

Those are good ideas--I'm not trying to pigeonhole things, just give me a quick-reference list of default tactics that fit the capabilities of the creatures.


I would pare the categories down.

I would say
Ambush
Skirmish
Tank
Ranged
Support
Caster
Swarm

And add a second system which rates general willingness to fight to the death.

Cowardly
Rational
Confident
Foolhardy
Stupid

I like it. I'll consider making it fit.

Unoriginal
2018-01-22, 09:55 PM
We really need to think of the monster roles differently.

For example, take the Ogre. Seems like textbook brute, right? Yet they're smart enough to carry javelins, and to use them rather than just rush in melee.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-22, 10:01 PM
We really need to think of the monster roles differently.

For example, take the Ogre. Seems like textbook brute, right? Yet they're smart enough to carry javelins, and to use them rather than just rush in melee.

I'd probably run a brute with weaker ranged options as:

In range for single-move + melee? Do that. If not,
In range for single-move and range? Do that. If not,
double-move.

But Ogres are not necessarily tactically-minded--they'll throw them at the first good target they can hit instead of saving it for breaking concentration or other "smarter" use. It's charge and throw, not kite or otherwise maneuver unless led by a smarter creature giving the orders (and then they're not particularly disciplined).

There are many monsters who completely lack ranged options--the brutes among them will primarily charge and try to smack things around. That doesn't mean they won't flee if the situation is hopeless (depending on the monster), but they're primarily melee oriented and beefy enough to survive some hits.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-01-22, 10:14 PM
Another issue (the more pressing one for me) is that I lack the processing power to remember what individualized "proper" tactics are for a mixed group of monsters, especially while also responding to players and keeping things going. So having tags that give a sane default would help me out, even if it means losing some fidelity.

And it helps at design time, because I can quickly realize better pairings--not putting two controllers together with no heavy hitters, or a mob type (like a creature with pack tactics) together with only ranged allies. A good categorization system saves my precious time (I'm running three groups a week through entirely different, entirely custom content in addition to a full time job).