How do you stop the DM from attacking squishes?

[Tanarii]

Or conversely, as a DM how do you decide which creatures get attacked the most?

My players generally use the most time honored D&D tactic: choke points (natural or magical), lines of combat, and blocking access to the squishes.

On the DMing side, two very old school DMing decision making trees are to have intelligent monsters (using the term to include NPCs) attack those casting, attack lightly armored guys, or better yet attack one who are both. Unless, at least since 2e C&T, it will provoke an OA for doing so. In other words, target the (apparent) squishes.

I have a strong propensity towards monsters attacking those casting. What got me thinking about this: recently a player who had noticed this trend was in a broken front line situation, and had his heavily armored Cleric cast Bless and loudly proclaim (in front of the enemy, per my table talk rule) "Blessings on all my friends!". After the fight he told me it was his new tanking spell - Mark All Enemies. :smallamused:

[sophontteks]

Or conversely, as a DM how do you decide which creatures get attacked the most?

My players generally use the most time honored D&D tactic: choke points (natural or magical), lines of combat, and blocking access to the squishes.

On the DMing side, two very old school DMing decision making trees are to have intelligent monsters (using the term to include NPCs) attack those casting, attack lightly armored guys, or better yet attack one who are both. Unless, at least since 2e C&T, it will provoke an OA for doing so. In other words, target the (apparent) squishes.

I have a strong propensity towards monsters attacking those casting. What got me thinking about this: recently a player who had noticed this trend was in a broken front line situation, and had his heavily armored Cleric cast Bless and loudly proclaim (in front of the enemy, per my table talk rule) "Blessings on all my friends!". After the fight he told me it was his new tanking spell - Mark All Enemies. :smallamused:
Generally the player who gave the DM the most beer would be targeted the least. This makes squishes the most expensive class to play.

[mephnick]

Or conversely, as a DM how do you decide which creatures get attacked the most?

It's honestly different for each encounter and each monster. I just do what the enemy would do. A raging Owlbear rushes the nearest threat and does all of it's attacks. If that clangs uselessly off the paladin, so be it. If it drops the Monk in one hit and then kills him outright on auto-crits, so be it. Intelligent enemies definitely target the most harmful threat..and let's be honest, that's usually the spell caster. Any experienced warrior knows that mages wield powers that can disable your entire group of allies in seconds and if given the chance, you've already lost. I don't think it's "cheap" to rush casters, but it goes the other way as well. A hobgoblin warlord may ignore the squishy and take it as a personal test to go toe to toe with the knight on the front lines in honorable battle. If the mage stains their own honor on disrupting a duel, that's on them and their ancestors will rightly shun them when they die.

[Tanarii]

Generally the player who gave the DM the most beer would be targeted the least. This makes squishes the most expensive class to play.
No alcohol at my tables, I had too many games devolve into utter ridiculousness and/or inattention when I was younger. But I like the way you think. :smallbiggrin:

[R.Shackleford]

5e isn't really made to allow non-squishies to stop squishies from being squished.

The primary way that I, as a player, stop my squishy allies from being squished, is to bring Actor to a fight (sometimes linguist and a background that gives more languages).

Oh yes. Actor is the best way to push a DM into having enemies target my non-squishy.

Use your advantage on deception and performance to make fun of creatures, their moms, or their religious leaders. Do it in such a way that ignoring your non-squishy character would be way out of character for these creatures (most targets would be intelligent enough to understand).

I like to use a bad Fran Drescher voice as my "enemy's mother's" voice. Say something... Terrible... Something offensive... Something childish.

If they don't have moms... Start attacking their race, town, or religion. Constantly make it where you would be the target...

Gruumish? *does girly voice* oh look I'm gruumish and I like dressing like an elf and playing pretty tea princess because Corelleon told me to *teeheehee*.

Mechanically you can stop about 1 creature from reaching the squishies with Sentinel. With damage you can stop one or two mooks... With Actor you can have hordes gunning for you and you alone. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to blindly attacking someone while the squishies get to sit back and cast/shoot.

[sophontteks]

I have a totem barbarian with the elk totem and tavern brawler. I'm hoping that he can rush into the enemy and just barrel right through to their own squishies. Grapple them so they can't escape. This would put the enemy on the defensive and make the tank appear as the biggest threat. He could even send them on a chase, dragging the squishy at 40ft per round while hitting them. Or possibly use improvised weapons to provoke the enemy. Beating them with their fallen comrades and such. The more viceral and intimidating he can appear, the more likely he would be the focus of even the smartest enemy.


No alcohol at my tables, I had too many games devolve into utter ridiculousness and/or inattention when I was younger. But I like the way you think. :smallbiggrin:
So, you are saying that the games I DM devolve into ridiculousness because they are feeding me alchohol. hmmmm.....

[Keravath]

As a DM, I usually tend to apply logic taking into account the capabilities of the attackers.

If things are going badly for the PCs then the opponents may occasionally make less logical choices :)

1) If creatures are low intelligence then they tend to attack the nearest, the one who hurt them last or perhaps the one wearing the gaudiest clothing :)
2) Smarter opponents might try to go after casters but it might depend on the type of character. Are they willing to suffer one or more opportunity attacks to get to the spell caster? Are they willing to end up potentially surrounded just to engage the spell caster?

Yes, from a group perspective, it is usually best to take out the spell casters as quickly as possible. However, many melee opponents might be very reluctant to sacrifice themselves by running past the front row, allowing them free swings, allowing them to surround him in later rounds ... just to attack the most threatening opponent. How many NPCs will say "Let me die so my cohorts don't get fireballed?" ... also knowing that the odds of killing the caster in one round are quite small and the other attackers will probably get fireballed anyway if that happens ... and he will probably die first. Usually not too many. So the actions of NPCs when I play them tend to be moderated by their individual outlook, the goals of the group they are associated with, and other factors.

For example, if a fighter knows that they have ranged support and casters of their own ... they will probably try to tie up the front row and let their support deal with the opposing casters similar to what many PCs might decide to do.

[Mith]

So, you are saying that the games I DM devolve into ridiculousness because they are feeding me alchohol. hmmmm.....

They do not have to if you ask for sealed bottles, since you just stockpile for later.

That being said, if I could get my table to try 5e, I would be tempted to do a Dungeons & Drinks where there is a "lesser" Inspiration chits that can stockpile to spend to get Inspiration, or a lesser amount allows you an actual beer. Otherwise, you can only get one actual beer when you are at a tavern.

For the actual topic, the best way I have heard for squshies to avoid being squished is to have them look like a different sort of caster. Say you have your Wizard dress as a mercenary with a crossbow and crossbow shield (they have an actual name. basically tower shields with a kick stand). Your wizard is seen as a shooter that sets up 3/4 to full cover for themselves and can at elast set up buffs and debuffs while obscured depending on how you rule combat awareness.

[Corran]

I usually step out to the balcony to have a smoke after I finish my turn. If I see that they look towards me, I take out my phone and pretend I am talking. Better than blink!

Edit: Seriously though, I often look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516507-Let-s-Read-The-Monster-Manual-II-Fantastic-Beasts-and-Where-to-Fight-Them&highlight=fantastic) thread and its predecessor, trying to fish interesting tactics for the monsters I use (cause sometimes the MM entry does not cut it). By default, I always try to plan for an enemy set up that has ways to threaten the squishes (whether that is ranged attacks, mobility or just large numbers). If the PCs have ways to counter it then it's fine. If they don't, well, then it's probably fine too, as most CR appropriate combat encounters are not that hard in the first place. Generally though, I am more focused on keeping things moving at a fast pace, so if the tank has engaged a big monster, I will usually have that monster attack the tank, rather than having it move away and go after the wizard, just because the fighter didn't take sentinel or didn't plan for a storng OA, or because no one focused on control (generally I don't want to punish wrong decisions when it comes to character building, and this is going to happen either way without me forcing it when I use stronger opponents for the ''important/climactic'' battles, whenever it is that they occur). Everyone is happy that way, and it also allows me to move quickly through the monster's turns. But I will throw things at the squishes at a regular base, cause judging from my own experience, it is very boring to have a character fight with impunity.

[Honest Tiefling]

As a player of many a squishy, I think it is unfair to target the squishies even with intelligent enemies all of the time. For instance, most squishies probably aren't going to dress like a wizard. There are ways to acquire armor, or even just normal clothes to make yourself seem like a bandit, conscript or other non-magical person. Now, if your character runs into battle screaming 'I AM THE RUBY SORCERERESS OF THE EAST, FEAR MY ARCANE MIGHT' while wearing flowing robes with stars on them and brandishing an ornate staff, then I think that one might be on you.

Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to say that the enemy character could also make mistakes and attempt to target clerics, rangers, arcane tricksters and eldritch knights. To most, spells look like spells and it might be hard to know if it was divine or arcane. The enemy has limited information, and they should be forced to act on what little they know.


No alcohol at my tables, I had too many games devolve into utter ridiculousness and/or inattention when I was younger. But I like the way you think. :smallbiggrin:

But there are so many other goods a DM might want. Pizza, yard work, cleaning up after the game, the blood of your enemies, money, or other favors can all work. You can be a merciful but sober god amongst your players.

[Laserlight]

No alcohol at my tables, I had too many games devolve into utter ridiculousness and/or inattention when I was younger. But I like the way you think. :smallbiggrin:

My group tends to devolve when the PCs get to drinking, never mind the players. "Four weeks ago, we had just gone into the tavern. I get back from vacation, and you're all still in the tavern, devising rules for vomiting and passing out."

[Laserlight]

The absolute most effective method I ever (unintentionally) devised to keep my 4e caster from being attacked: use miniatures for all the player characters. Everyone else had the usual 28mm Reaper minis. My character was a pixie sorc, and I used a base with my character's symbol printed on it and a 2mm bead floating above it. The DM and I eventually figured out that he just didn't notice my token among the monster tokens.

My gnome wizard also seldom got attacked. Generally the monsters were distracted by the screaming barbarian and tempest cleric charging them; the harmless little gnome twenty yards back didn't seem to be doing much (I usually just cast Bless and saved most of my slots for utility and emergencies).

[Dudewithknives]

In this edition I don’t worry about it unless they are already burn or resources are low.

I have been in plenty of groups where the “squishier” class has just as good of ac as anyone else, and far more oh crap buttons.

The only reall thing that makes them squishier is more than likely not nearly as many hp as the others

[Tanarii]

As a player of many a squishy, I think it is unfair to target the squishies even with intelligent enemies all of the time. For instance, most squishies probably aren't going to dress like a wizard. There are ways to acquire armor, or even just normal clothes to make yourself seem like a bandit, conscript or other non-magical person. Now, if your character runs into battle screaming 'I AM THE RUBY SORCERERESS OF THE EAST, FEAR MY ARCANE MIGHT' while wearing flowing robes with stars on them and brandishing an ornate staff, then I think that one might be on you.
Given their propensity for wearing no armor, wielding staffs, orbs, wands, or rods, and flinging around fire, acid, lighting and ice, many wizards and sorcs are fairly obvious. Even the ones In a troubadours costume.

I mean obviously #NotAllWizards. But clearly they are No TRUE Wizard. :smallamused: (j/k)

Seriously though, the reason knowledgeable enemies (not just intelligent ones, but knowledgeable about magic ones) would know the maxim "always attack the caster" in 5e is disrupting concentration. That should have sunk into the worlds collective consciousness and lore about magic to some degree. Not just be a matter of invisible class mechanics. There is also the obvious part of wizards/sorcs often (but not always) being easy to hit glass cannons, barring magic defenses, and again that's probably part of lore. But the knowledge you can disrupt concentration, to whatever degree it is 'known' in a DMs world, should apply to all casters, to be degree or another.

[Sigreid]

Usually it's choke points. With my current evoker, the dropping of a fireball at his own feat is a hell of a deterrent. As a DM, I think it's unrealistic to believe that the sword wielding psychopath will be casually ignored when he's all up in the monster's grill.

[Angelalex242]

As you do unto these, so shall be done unto you.

If the Players geek the mage on sight, than the monsters do that too. If the players fight the closest enemy first, so shall the monsters.

Karma, and all that.

As a player, though, my Ancients Paladin with Sentinel and Mage Slayer usually makes a beeline for the nearest caster and smites the everloving **** out of him.

[Tanarii]

Usually it's choke points. With my current evoker, the dropping of a fireball at his own feat is a hell of a deterrent. As a DM, I think it's unrealistic to believe that the sword wielding psychopath will be casually ignored when he's all up in the monster's grill.
Its definitely unrealistic. Thats represented mechanically by an Opportunity attack if you try to move away.

[furby076]

As an ancients pally with misty step, if i see squishies i hop on over to say "hi" with my quarterstaff, that is engraved with the word "kindness".

Since I can do that, i expect the DM to target the resident warlock. My paladin is not fond of the "witch", so you know, he won't cry that much if she dies. Don't get me wrong, he will try and save her, but won't fret if what remains of her mortgaged soul gets sent to whatever layer of hell she made a pact with.

[Gastronomie]

As a DM I constantly RP the enemies.

Some enemies mindlessly attack the nearest one. Some team together to attack the one with least HP together. Some target casters and healers over the others.

Any tactical enemy will go for the backrow first, if able. Hobgoblins, drow, dragons.

[furby076]

No alcohol at my tables, I had too many games devolve into utter ridiculousness and/or inattention when I was younger. But I like the way you think. :smallbiggrin:

True story:years ago i allowed alcohol at my table. A good friend of mine, who i had lost contact with for a couple of years but got connected back with, joined the game i was in. I was the player, but hosted the games. As a person in his mid-20's, alcohol was available in my house. My friend got really drunk, beligerant, and tried to punch the DM because the DM (in character as an npc) almost killed my character. We calmed my friend down, the session disbanded early. Me and the DM couldn't let my friend drive home, but I didn't have a spare bedroom. So the DM took him, to his (DM's house), where they had sex with each other. I didn't mind any of that and was only upset about the session being cut short. My friend never talked to me again (embarassed i guess). No more alcohol since then.

[sophontteks]

True story:years ago i allowed alcohol at my table. A good friend of mine, who i had lost contact with for a couple of years but got connected back with, joined the game i was in. I was the player, but hosted the games. As a person in his mid-20's, alcohol was available in my house. My friend got really drunk, beligerant, and tried to punch the DM because the DM (in character as an npc) almost killed my character. We calmed my friend down, the session disbanded early. Me and the DM couldn't let my friend drive home, but I didn't have a spare bedroom. So the DM took him, to his (DM's house), where they had sex with each other. I didn't mind any of that and was only upset about the session being cut short. My friend never talked to me again (embarassed i guess). No more alcohol since then.
Wow, that story was a roller coaster ride.

[LaserFace]

Monsters have their innate motivations for who they go for, but also cooperate in taking down key targets. If it's a messy melee with a band of Orcs or something, each will go for whoever pisses them off the most. But if there is a commander or someone removed from the brawl, they'll pick specific party members (eg a Wizard), maybe even tell the others "Kill that one!" and they'll do it. Or, if one party member has obviously demonstrated they're just way more dangerous, they become the target naturally.

I think this way works pretty well because it doesn't stretch anyone's imagination that enemies probably don't know the relative power of each individual character. Sure they might generalize casters as being spookier, but they should rightly beware of any PC. They should also behave with emotion and with notions of self-preservation; likely won't eat opportunity attacks just to reach the wizard unless they're sure the next spell will kill everyone anyway.

Circumstances are probably different when they get the drop on the party, though. If you can shoot a volley of arrows before the party gets a chance to do anything, might as well go for the squishy target. Thems just the breaks.

[DeadMech]

Avoid fighting in wide open spaces like the outdoors against especially deadly encounters involving more enemies than allies, who surround your party... seems obvious advice. But your mileage will vary because you don't decide on the encounters directly. The way area threat and OA's work in 5e is underwhelming. In a 4 person party you can't block every route enemies might take to get at your squishiest member if it's what they want to do. It's just not physically possible since enemies will only get punished for trying if they leave the reach of a party member. If you are in base contact with your frontliner the enemy will just dance around to the backside of them. And if you leave a buffer of two spaces between you and the frontline the enemy will just go wide and weasel around to the side. And the larger the gap between the frontline and the squishy the more likely some enemy is to flank. Some monsters you fight will also often be tankier and harder hitting that a typical PC so even if they can't get around to an unprotected side they might just choose to plow through a single OA and go for the jugular anyway. One of the campaigns I played turned out to be ~95% outdoor encounters. And ~85% of those were designed to be single encounter per day fights. And even the remainder that were plotting to be encountered in series tended towards being over CR'd against enemies that featured special abilities that drastically change how you have to fight them. Also the withdraw action is garbage since it won't actually get you far enough away from enemies to actually be safe from having one just chase you down.

Indoors or in other tighter environments things improve so very much. Having a solid wall that enemies can't just simply flank around to get to you is frankly divine. Bruiser enemies can't squish what they can't reach. And even foes with ranged attacks can be de-fanged by a simple hallway corner, door frame, or even a flight of stairs. The space might be too narrow for get to your party wizard without eating at least one OA, maybe even 3 of them. It might even be narrow enough that the enemy simply can't navigate past the meatshield. You might still eat a fireball spreading around corners or something but the risk significantly drops. even if something comes up and surprises you from behind as long as it doesn't one shot you if you withdraw it's pretty likely an ally will be able to step in between you and danger.

Range is great for keeping out of trouble. If you know the enemy is on one side of the battlemat and you don't plan to do much else other than plink with firebolt or some other ranged cantrip, then there really isn't any reason you shouldn't be as far away from the enemy as possible. Just pray the DM doesn't throw enemy reinforcements behind you mid battle with no warning. What spells you use should determine the range you engage.

You might be able to buy a first turn in combat without being ganked for being the caster if you don't look like the caster. I always buy a couple of bladed weapons early in. A short sword and a dagger perhaps. It's useful to cut ropes or do all kinds of things more than being used for an actual attack. An elf with a visible shortsword might be a wizard but they are more likely to be a melee ranger, or a dex fighter, or a rogue or all sorts of things. And you don't have to visibly carry a spellbook to cast spells. Put in in a backpack or a bag of holding unless you are preparing spells. This will only delay the enemy knowing you are a squishy but in all honesty it's those first couple turns of a fight that are the most important. If the first couple turns go well then the battle turns into a mop up fairly easily. If the first couple turns go poorly you slide much closer to threat of tpk.

I've heard some people use illusions to make their squishies look like towering plate clad fortresses. Illusion magic though tends to be very DM dependent. And this edition you'ld probably only get 10 minutes out of it or something.

And well being a wizard doesn't mean you have to be the squishy. There are allot of defensive spells and options you can take. having good dex and con are obvious. Mage armor and shield will boost your ac. But things like Misty step can get you out of a tight spot. walls. The list goes on and on. Probably a quarter of all the spells I learn from my wizard levels are picked specifically for their defensive applications.

The single best thing I ever did playing a wizard in my last campaign was to get a hold of a broom of flying. Staying 11-15 feet in the air is the best defense against the majority of melee threats. Though I was nerfed with a 15 dc dex check or fall prone to the ground when hit so something like a 60% fail rate. And you can bet everything with a paralyzing effect tried to hit me with it. The falling damage wasn't that bad but being on the ground and prone was pretty bad. Got an unarmored pacifist paladin who won't hit a zombie for a meatshield, a bow ranger who insists on running right into the move and attack range of the enemies, and a swashbuckler rogue who gtfo's of enemy reach every turn. My party didn't have a front line.

Enemies were pretty suicidal in that campaign. There was only one point I can remember enemies, clearly losing the battle not just throw themselves at us.

Different campaign and different DM the squishiest person was my sorcadin what with a war cleric, a barbarian and some other heavy armor frontliner I forgot. It was kinda nice to just walk into melee, drop some smackdown and cycle back to lob a few mop-up firebolts or wrangle the enemies who surrendered if I got a little low. You know without the entire front dissolving.

Allot of this comes down to the DM. The DM just has more information than the players. Do the enemies he runs just know who is the most vulnerable or who is the biggest threat? What hoops do you as a player have to jump through to figure out the enemy capabilities or status? Will every enemy die for the cause and fight with the absolute most optimal tactics regardless of what the enemy is? Does the enemy assume the first round fireball a wizard threw is something they can do at will?

When I DM I like to have the enemies have a sense of self preservation. Yeah they might know that their side will lose the day if they don't take out the artillery support in the back but they aren't the heroes. I expect the party paladin to nobly sacrifice his last hp to buy his friends just a few more seconds to bring down a terrible dragon. Because that's what heroes do. But the enemies are the villains. Maybe if it isn't clearly suicide to try and maybe if they are the sort who can tell the difference between a pious fighter or paladin and the cleric. Or the difference between some ranger or monk and a wizard. Ambush predators grab whoever wanders off from the group or who's closest between it's hiding spot and it's retreat path. And whatever method I use to determine if enemies recognize squishies has to also be equally available to the player characters. Sometimes that means the enemies throw too much resources than would be tactically wise at a player purely because they did something flashy and sudden before only to find out they went after someone who already blew their spell slots or long rest abilities, leaving them open to the rest of the party.

There's a line between offering tense exciting combats and either boring or frustrating some poor player because his character spends half of every session lying on the floor in a pool of their own blood.

[sophontteks]

Find out whoever their leader is and grab them by the throat! Don't matter what anyone else can do. The biggest threat is the person who has the leader by the throat.

[ad_hoc]

This tension is key to dynamic combat in 5e.

OAs are not much of a deterrent. The PC only gets to make 1 and it doesn't do much most of the time.

If the PCs get to dictate combat with chokepoints and the like then they will have an easy time. In a more regular scenario of monsters attacking in the middle of the room or from multiple corridors then the PCs will have a tough time.

I've seen it said a lot on this board that AC doesn't matter for ranged characters or that options like Mobile are great because it takes the PC out of harm's way. That sort of thinking is alien to me. It's so easy for the monsters to just walk forward. Many monsters have great movement. Orcs are scary humanoid monsters because they can dash as a bonus action.

So how to stop it? There are a few things to do. Many spells have effects which can slow down monsters. Tougher characters can stand guard next to PCs. Protection Fighting Style is good here, so is a beastmaster's pet.

The best way is to be okay with it. The party's defense is only as strong as the weakest member. Don't worry about getting 25 AC, it won't help the party. Everyone should be taking some defensive options. It might even be taking the Dodge action, which is highly underrated. Also, have melee options. Yes, your character might like doing ranged attacks but once the enemy gets close what do you do then? OAs hurt PCs more than they hurt monsters.

[LudicSavant]

Or conversely, as a DM how do you decide which creatures get attacked the most?

As a DM, my enemies will generally attack whichever foe they judge to be most advantageous to attack (according to their IC motivations and knowledge, of course. A zombie isn't a particularly discerning foe, for instance, but I'll totally play kobolds like Tucker). On both sides of the screen, I feel like anything less is a bit of a letdown, similar to if the enemies were just wearing "kick me" signs and volunteering to help us carry their gold out of the dungeon. The DM should not attack the turtle just because they feel like they're 'supposed' to. If they act like that, the player will never need to learn... and therefore won't get to enjoy the depth of the tactical side of the game.


How do you stop the DM from attacking squishes?
As a player, you can tank in pretty much the same manner you tank in any game with a tank role where the enemy side is controlled by a human being. I think the problem is that people look at things like "World of Warcraft" for their idea of a tank, when they should be looking at something like Overwatch, League of Legends, Atlas Reactor, or Guild Wars PvP. Much better examples of tanking strategies against actual people. To be a good tank in D&D, you want to be like Reinhardt, not like your WoW Warrior. If you're thinking in terms of "aggro," then you're doing it wrong. You should be thinking about it in terms of making "go after the squishy" no longer a winning option on your foe's decision tree, whether they know it or not. You can do this by interfering with their ability to make the decision in the first place (such as limiting their movement so they can't get in range), or by punishing them for making any decision you don't approve of (which I'll give an example of below). And of course it's possible to take advantage of the enemy's personality and roleplaying and such, too, but I think the core of one's strategy should be able to deal with rational and knowledgeable opponents, too.

The ineffective tank says "It's the DM's choice who to attack. If they decide to go after the squishies, that's just bad luck."
The effective tank says "The enemy ignores me at their peril. If they decide to go after the squishies, they will lose."

Here's an example. Let's take an Arcana Cleric tank we had. We'll call her Lady Lockdown.

Lady Lockdown is a level 8 character with War Caster, Magic Initiate, and 20 Wisdom (yes, this means point buy wasn't used and she rolled a single 17; it's a thing that happens). She has Booming Blade, which thanks to Potent Spellcasting and Shillelagh gets to add her Wisdom modifier to damage a whopping three times if the enemy triggers the rider.

Going into a big fight, she has Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. Then she walks up to the big boss monster and casts Booming Blade on its face. The monster has now taken up to 6d8+15 damage (if stuff hits), all of its little minions are melting in Spirit Guardians, and it has Lady Lockdown standing next to it. It now has the following decision tree:

OPTION A) Attack Lady Lockdown! She's a tough-as-nails tank, and breaking her Concentration is hard, but at least he has a chance to and can accomplish something to make his life easier.

OPTION B) Try to move away from Lady Lockdown, and hit that squishy Wizard in the back row. This poses two major problems. First, he might not even be able to reach the squishy because Spirit Guardians causes the whole area to be difficult terrain. Second, as soon as he does this he activates the rider from Booming Blade (boosted by Potent Spellcasting), and provokes an OA, which is another Booming Blade which comes with another rider if he keeps on trying to move to the squishy. If all of this hits, combined with her actions earlier in the round, she does no less than 12d8+35 (89) damage as a level 8 character. Combined with the rest of the party's output, this tends to mean that the monster has an extremely short life expectancy, dramatically mitigating the damage they would do to the "squishy" or indeed anyone in the party.

OPTION C) Okay... the monster is thinking at this point walking into melee range of the squishy is a bad idea, and attacking Lady Lockdown is a bad idea. So they decide to stand still and shoot the squishy with a ranged attack. However, since Lady Lockdown's in melee range, his attacks have Disadvantage... and possible cover penalties. On top of that, his ranged attacks (like those of many monsters) are less effective than his melee attacks. And he's locked in place, and so can't maneuver into a better angle to fire or anything like that, while your allies can maneuver freely.

OPTION D) Okay, fine then. The monster casts a saving throw effect on the squishy! It adds a debilitating status effect. Lady Lockdown just uses Spell Breaker Healing Word as a bonus action next turn, removing the status effect and restoring a few of their hit points while they're at it. And still does most of her usual damage to the monster.

See what I'm saying here? Lady Lockdown is tanking by making the monster's entire decision tree less attractive via her existence. Between her control, damage pressure, and the simple fact that she is an effective party healer, she makes it much more difficult to actually take out anyone else in the party so long as she remains alive and functioning.

Lady Lockdown doesn't say "Oh no! The enemy tried to move to attack the squishy!" She goes "LOL, the enemy tried to go after my squishy without countering me first. How's that working out for ya?"

(Also, worth noting that LL here had a lot more tricks up her sleeve than just this one, as full casters tend to do. This is but a single example of a single tactic she had)

Edit:
Another example would be a Paladin who makes everyone near them significantly more durable (dat Aura), and has the ability to heal them off the death gate if they hit 0, and puts out a lot of offensive pressure with critfishing smites (including OA smites), and potentially has stuff like Sentinel that stops enemies in their tracks or punishes attacks on people adjacent to you, or Polearm Master that punishes enemies for entering an area, or Shield Master which severely hampers enemy movement.


OAs are not much of a deterrent. The PC only gets to make 1 and it doesn't do much most of the time.

This varies a lot based on the build. A typical Barbearian's OA damage may not be all that much of a deterrent, but a War Caster Rogue's certainly is. Do you want to eat around 80 damage on an OA, on top of what they did on their turn? I don't. Especially not if there's more than one of these sorts of characters in the party threatening to OA me.

Examples of characters who can make their OAs quite threatening include (but are not limited to)
Arcana Clerics (such as the one I just mentioned).
Rogues
Paladins
Hexblades (Incidentally, not only will your OA hurt, but you'll also knock the enemy prone, interrupting their movement and giving everyone else Advantage, and therefore more damage, against the enemy)
Anyone with Sentinel, because it interrupts the movement entirely.

[Theodoric]

It's basically a difficulty gauge, though it also depends on the monster. If the players are fighting an enemy with some basic idea of tactics, they're going to focus fire more. If the players are getting a bit lax and overly comfortable, hit them where it hurts. Usually though I let the tanks actually feel like they're tanking, because that's what they're there for.

It's really something every DM has to figure out for each situation and each group of players. Personally I don't overthink it because it's usually not worth the extra effort. Sometime I just role a die if I need to make a quick decision.

[Sigreid]

One thing I think a lot of DMs over look is that against most casters a valid tactic for shutting down their AOE attacks is to get up close and personal with their allies. Most casters can't limit their targets.

[Honest Tiefling]

One thing I think a lot of DMs over look is that against most casters a valid tactic for shutting down their AOE attacks is to get up close and personal with their allies. Most casters can't limit their targets.

That often requires trying to hug the paladin with the huge battleaxe and that often goes poorly unless you enjoy being smited in the face.

[Laserlight]

One thing I think a lot of DMs over look is that against most casters a valid tactic for shutting down their AOE attacks is to get up close and personal with their allies. Most casters can't limit their targets.

If you want to get up close and personal with our paladin, rogue and tempest cleric, go right ahead; you won't be attacking my squishy caster. And you can bet I'll have a party-friendly AoE of some sort, for just that situation.

[Cealocanth]

You don't. Battles will always be a walk in the park unless you really overdo the numbers or use some actual tactics once in a while. Sure, a party fighting off a swarm of giant rats or a cornered owlbear can likely assume that it will target the most threatening target in the closest proximity, but if you're raiding a bandit fort, and these bandits are anything worth their salt, they will be doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing that.

My favorite "stop rushing the battlefield and actually think about how you approach the encounter" setup is the historical precedent: watchtowers, walls, and archers. High profile towers with cover allow for easier spotting of rogues and infiltrators, as well as easy gagueing of enemy numbers. Archers harass attackers from a safe distance. In my game, modern-ish firearms exist, which makes this strategy even more effective. Using this classic setup means that the party has to work together to breach multiple fronts, take out key targets before breaching and entering, sneak in through underground passageways or by bribing and impersonating guards, and generally do something other than 'blow in the front door and mow down all the bad guys'.

A bit of a tangent here, but to get back on topic, you stop the squishies from getting hurt as a DM by making it so that the party needs to come up with reasons to protect them. If a defensive set up is dangerous to the barbarian, it's dangerous to a wizard standing out in the open like an idiot. The warlock, wizard, bard, and sorcerer will learn that they cannot take the head of the pack when facing down a literal firing squad, so they start to look for other ways to gain advantages, like lobbing fireballs around corners or out of trenches (artillery) or preparing the Fly spell (air support). The skirmishers also learn that they need to let the tank soak up the aggro before trying to buckle swashes and flank enemies. The rangers learn that their job isn't necessarily to kill the big guard monster as it is to stop the guy with an assault rifle pointed at your cleric's forehead.

My favorite improv strategy my players have used is the Tortoise formation, where the wizard and cleric put as many buffs on the tanks as they can, the fighter/paladin gets a tower shield and the barbarian is the huge roadblock that he is, and the spellcasters and squishies take defensive cover inside of a formation covered by their less squishy friends. Yes, this is literally the perfect setup for an enemy wizard to cast a fireball or some mook to toss a grenade, but the point is that the non-squishies are trying to protect the squishies, and the squishies are trying to not be shot.

[LudicSavant]

You don't. Battles will always be a walk in the park unless you really overdo the numbers or use some actual tactics once in a while. Sure, a party fighting off a swarm of giant rats or a cornered owlbear can likely assume that it will target the most threatening target in the closest proximity, but if you're raiding a bandit fort, and these bandits are anything worth their salt, they will be doing everything in their power to prevent you from doing that.

This.


you stop the squishies from getting hurt as a DM by making it so that the party needs to come up with reasons to protect them.

Also this. If you don't threaten them, they will never learn to protect themselves from threats.


My favorite improv strategy my players have used is the Tortoise formation, where the wizard and cleric put as many buffs on the tanks as they can, the fighter/paladin gets a tower shield and the barbarian is the huge roadblock that he is, and the spellcasters and squishies take defensive cover inside of a formation covered by their less squishy friends. Yes, this is literally the perfect setup for an enemy wizard to cast a fireball or some mook to toss a grenade, but the point is that the non-squishies are trying to protect the squishies, and the squishies are trying to not be shot.

An Ancients Paladin would be perfect for that (particularly because they have the ability to counteract many of the downsides of being in a formation where everyone can be hit by the same fireball).

[Tanarii]

Also this. If you don't threaten them, they will never learn to protect themselves from threats.

Not too worried on that front. I run a campaign with plenty of opportunities for PCs to bite off more than they can chew if they don't put some thought into what they are doing. The challenge is in the how, given the assumption the DM or players are going to have at least some enemies smart enough to aggressively target the creatures they think are easy targets.

I mean, I've played AL, and the 4e precursor. So I've definitely experience players who have no idea how to work together strategically and tactically. And I've played with plenty of groups, and DMd for many as well, where the players make the DMs job difficult on the 'protect the sauishies' front.

My question was based on the assumption of a minimum level of need, and awareness of the need.

Generally speaking, the most effective methods seems to be 'rely on the DM to be somewhat reasonable & fair in choosing targets', combined with terrain control and lines of combat. (Edit: also cover. I previously left that one out, and yes it's very important!) Please note the former doesn't imply being washy-washy, it just means playing the enemy as a real in-game creature would.

And on the flip side, that's where the job can get hard as a DM trying to protect squishy monsters. I've found can rely on players to do two things: make highly entertaining but stupid decisions regularly; try their damnedest to be as unrealistic & unfair as possible with targeting in pursuit of killing the enemy. :smallamused:

[Xetheral]

As a DM, I roleplay target selection for individual NPCs and monsters. Disciplined enemies will follow orders, but otherwise Intelligent enemies at my table tend to prioritize immediate self-preservation. That means sticking to full cover whenever possible, dodging or disengaging if exposed, and/or attacking the most immediately threatening foe. When not immediately threatened, enemies target foes who are the greatest immediate danger to their ally, or else target whomever is easiest to hit (i.e. they engage or shoot whomever is most exposed).

So at my table, the best way to draw fire away from the squishies is to (1) be seen doing a lot of damage frequently, (2) engage enemies in melee, and (3) appear easy to hit. This makes the Barbarian's Rage/Reckless Attack combo phenomenal at drawing (and surviving) fire. As a squishy, the best way to avoid being targeted is to make sure you're harder to hit than the tanks. This means getting your AC up as high as possible and/or ending every single turn in (preferably full) cover. If you can't reach cover, drop prone or Dodge.

Disciplined, trained enemies will target whomever they're ordered to target, and, even without orders, are more likely to make targeting choices that are optimal for their squad even at risk to themselves (e.g. leaving full cover to engage a spellcaster to try to break concentration, staying in melee against a superior foe, leaving full cover to ready an attack, etc.). They're also much more likely to focus their fire. This makes these enemies much more challenging to fight, and makes terrain and the availability of full cover vitally important to the squishies' survival.

[ad_hoc]

As a DM, I roleplay target selection for individual NPCs and monsters. Disciplined enemies will follow orders, but otherwise Intelligent enemies at my table tend to prioritize immediate self-preservation. That means sticking to full cover whenever possible, dodging or disengaging if exposed, and/or attacking the most immediately threatening foe. When not immediately threatened, enemies target foes who are the greatest immediate danger to their ally, or else target whomever is easiest to hit (i.e. they engage or shoot whomever is most exposed).


The problem is you're both saying that the unarmoured characters are not threatening while you must recognize that they actually are a threat.

A few monsters will fight as cowards, but then, most of the time they would just be running away. Some goblins fighting among tougher allies would probably be spending much of their time hiding.

Orcs wouldn't though and they don't need to be ordered. They aren't cowards. They want to charge in and cut their enemies down. When the choice is robes or plate mail, they're going to go for the robes.

Self preservation is not dying, not being the last to die. Any monster capable of fighting should understand that.

This, and having a long rest after every encounter is why people think 5e is easy. Stop having every enemy be a zombie.

[LudicSavant]

The problem is you're both saying that the unarmoured characters are not threatening while you must recognize that they actually are a threat.

Yeah. We earthlings may not be conditioned to think of a guy in a robe holding an orb as being equivalent to a giant howitzer pointed directly at your face, but that's only because in our world, he wouldn't be. People in the vast majority of D&D worlds should bloody well know better.


A few monsters will fight as cowards, but then, most of the time they would just be running away. Some goblins fighting among tougher allies would probably be spending much of their time hiding.

Orcs wouldn't though and they don't need to be ordered. They aren't cowards. They want to charge in and cut their enemies down. When the choice is robes or plate mail, they're going to go for the robes.

Self preservation is not dying, not being the last to die. Any monster capable of fighting should understand that.

Agreed. "Self preservation is not dying, not being the last die" also doubles as excellent advice for PCs who want to build tanks.


Stop having every enemy be a zombie.

Indeed. Your players will thank you for it! :smallbiggrin:

[NaughtyTiger]

PHB
Sentinel
Polearm master
Silent Image/Minor Image
Sanctuary
Charm Person


XGE
Ancestral Guardians
Cavalier


Sentinel/Polearm master between 2 coordinated players works well.

[Xetheral]

The problem is you're both saying that the unarmoured characters are not threatening while you must recognize that they actually are a threat.

A few monsters will fight as cowards, but then, most of the time they would just be running away. Some goblins fighting among tougher allies would probably be spending much of their time hiding.

Orcs wouldn't though and they don't need to be ordered. They aren't cowards. They want to charge in and cut their enemies down. When the choice is robes or plate mail, they're going to go for the robes.

Self preservation is not dying, not being the last to die. Any monster capable of fighting should understand that.

This, and having a long rest after every encounter is why people think 5e is easy. Stop having every enemy be a zombie.

I said I roleplay target selection. That means looking at targeting from the perspective of each individual opponent and deciding what they will do. I consider their goals, their values, their culture, their training, and their discipline. That's about as far from treating every opponent as a zombie as it's possible to get.

And I agree that, all else equal, enemies will target the characters that are easiest to hit. If a guy in robes is standing out of cover and not dodging, they are going to be a high priority target. But all else is rarely equal. If conscript Bob's friend Sam is in melee combat and in danger of taking a battleaxe to the gut in the next few seconds, Bob's instinct is going to be to help Sam now (particularly if Sam's foe left itself apparently vulnerable via Reckless Attack), rather than break cover to try to manuver to get a shot at a spellcaster in full cover that's casting buffs. Orders/training/discipline can potentially overcome that instinct, allowing Bob to let Sam get hurt in order to make a targeting decision that is more optimal for the group as a whole.

In other circumstances, the outcome may be different: if that spellcaster in full cover is casting fireballs, that spellcaster may represent a more-immediate threat to Bob and his friends than Sam's melee opponent.

Also, I find it helpful to keep in mind that, when they have a choice, intelligent enemies usually won't choose to fight if they don't think they can win. So self-preservation is largely about trying to avoid taking damage until victory. The moment an intelligent opponent doesn't think it's possible to win, they're likely to want to surrender or flee. Again, training and discipline (or objectives worth dying for, like protecting non-combatant family) can overcome this instinct.

None of my players have ever complained that my games are too easy. Because intelligent enemies at my table will, when possible, avoid fighting if they don't have a clear advantage, encounters with such foes who are willing to engage tend to be extremely difficult if approached as a stand-up fight.

[tieren]

I try to do whats reasonable for the narrative. If two armored figures kick the door in and rush into the room murdering my poker buddies, and another guy is in the hall occasionally poking his head in the door, I am going to worry about the killers in the room first.

But I also try to do what is fun for the players. If I know they have spent resources on some interesting defensive tactic, I try to give them opportunities to use it. i.e. heavy armor master, I'll make sure there are some fights he is wading through a large number of small damage attacks and loving it. or if the wizard spent a bunch of money to learn and copy levitate with a plan of floating up and being untouchable to ground units I'll make sure a couple of times things with no ranged attacks go for him so he feels good using it.

I'll make sure there are enough ranged enemies to make sure archers in the party know they don't get a free ride on defense and have to play tactically too.

[ad_hoc]

I said I roleplay target selection. That means looking at targeting from the perspective of each individual opponent and deciding what they will do. I consider their goals, their values, their culture, their training, and their discipline. That's about as far from treating every opponent as a zombie as it's possible to get.


Right and your conclusion is that they're zombies. It's the same difference.


I try to do whats reasonable for the narrative. If two armored figures kick the door in and rush into the room murdering my poker buddies, and another guy is in the hall occasionally poking his head in the door, I am going to worry about the killers in the room first.

These are monsters we are talking about not commoners.

The game is actually a lot of fun when players need to worry about this sort of thing. There is a lot of tension in combat as they are more difficult and the players need to think about their tactics more.

[MoiMagnus]

My main DM used to be (a long time ago) a "strategist DM", but he disgust himself by begin too efficient at killing its PCs (or creating boring fight).

Hence he switched to the converse:
+ Monsters are not playing optimally (he could frequently TPK us if he played them optimally)
+ They are played with very few reflection time.
+ They are played in way that reward interesting behavior from the PCs (so good strategic choices, epic moments, ...), but does not punish to much errors
(a character exposed will be attacked so that the player will feel in danger, but he will not focus all the monsters on him to kill him)

Which mean that he is now what I call a "manipulative DM", since he "manipulate the players into having fun".

Note that this method of DMing only work on people that are able to "forget that they are being manipulated an enjoy the show" (like me), or people that don't have enough strategical understanding of the game to see the through the illusion.
(I've played once with this DM and a friend which is borderline paranoiac, and it didn't get well at all, since the feeling of being manipulated was ruining its fun)

[Willie the Duck]

My players generally use the most time honored D&D tactic: choke points (natural or magical), lines of combat, and blocking access to the squishes.
On the DMing side, two very old school DMing decision making trees are to have intelligent monsters (using the term to include NPCs) attack those casting, attack lightly armored guys, or better yet attack one who are both. Unless, at least since 2e C&T, it will provoke an OA for doing so. In other words, target the (apparent) squishes.

Old school had a different opportunity attack rules for each edition, but it seems there was some leftover wargaming thought built in that if two front lines engaged each other, you realistically couldn't just charge through to the back line of relatively lightly armored archers or artillery. That said, the dominant method of protecting the wizards (who, pre-rings of protection and the like, were usually stuck at AC 9 all game) was that you could fit two ranks (swords/axes in front, spears and polearms in the rear) of 3 wide of fighters, henchmen, and bribed monster allies (all of which you had) per 10' square! That, and the dungeons had convenient 10' wide corridors throughout. This is why the moving up to overland adventure was so intimidating (along with, y'know, you could run into 500 orcs or an elder dragon, regardless of your level) -- there was no way you had enough troops to completely ring the magic user and the wounded, etc.

The biggest issue is that very few people ever signed up to play squad commander, so this kind of hireling/henchmen type of game didn't really ever fully catch on when the game moved from predominantly wargamers to... well, everyone else. Every DM during the TSR era had their own workaround, since the ruleset never really caught up.

Squad leader play is still not very often enjoyed now, but in 5e it would be a huge upgrade in party power (since #s is a huge advantage in 5e), so I'm not sure I'd encourage movement back towards that model.


5e isn't really made to allow non-squishies to stop squishies from being squished.


Usually it's choke points.


Its definitely unrealistic. Thats represented mechanically by an Opportunity attack if you try to move away.


Avoid fighting in wide open spaces like the outdoors against especially deadly encounters involving more enemies than allies, who surround your party... seems obvious advice. But your mileage will vary because you don't decide on the encounters directly. The way area threat and OA's work in 5e is underwhelming.

Agreed. 5e by default uses the single reaction-action OA as disincentive, and it is predominantly insufficient if the DM decides that intelligent monsters would (knowing they are in a universe where a single OA won't drop them, and that killing the wizards first is tactically sound) rush past the front line. If the DM decides that is the case, expect to see a lot of:
Eldritch Knights and Arcane tricksters with War Caster so they can cast booming blade as an OA
Melee rogues in general (for SA-pumped OAs)
Sentinel and PAM feats
Reach-based battlefield control in general
Paladins over fighters (for smite-pumped OAs)
Armored casters (clerics and druids over wizards and the like, swords/valor bards over other types, draconic sorcerers with decent Dex, mountain dwarf or hobgoblin wizards, and 1 level cleric or fighter dips).


None of which is a bad thing in and of itself. As others have pointed out, an intensely tactical game can make combat more fun. It just changes decisions made, and you have to decide if that's what you want.


As a player of many a squishy, I think it is unfair to target the squishies even with intelligent enemies all of the time. For instance, most squishies probably aren't going to dress like a wizard. There are ways to acquire armor, or even just normal clothes to make yourself seem like a bandit, conscript or other non-magical person.

There are places where 'guy not wearing armor' is an obvious situation in and of itself. Once the spells start flying, who the biggest threat in a group is usually becomes pretty obvious.

And that's the sticky wicket. Despite softening the Linear martials/Quadratic casters issues that other editions have, spellcasters do kind of get it good in 5e (particularly at high levels), at least if their known weaknesses (such as low AC and HP) are for some reason off limits for the DM to exploit. I think the most important part is that DM and players are on the same page about how often the intelligent enemies are going to gang-rush the guy in robes/normal non-armor clothes/bandit wear who starts casting a spell. That way people can make decisions based on a realistic understanding of what is going to happen.

[manyslayer]

As a player of many a squishy, I think it is unfair to target the squishies even with intelligent enemies all of the time. For instance, most squishies probably aren't going to dress like a wizard. There are ways to acquire armor, or even just normal clothes to make yourself seem like a bandit, conscript or other non-magical person. Now, if your character runs into battle screaming 'I AM THE RUBY SORCERERESS OF THE EAST, FEAR MY ARCANE MIGHT' while wearing flowing robes with stars on them and brandishing an ornate staff, then I think that one might be on you.

Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to say that the enemy character could also make mistakes and attempt to target clerics, rangers, arcane tricksters and eldritch knights. To most, spells look like spells and it might be hard to know if it was divine or arcane. The enemy has limited information, and they should be forced to act on what little they know.
In the last 3.5 campaign I ran, we had a petite young woman dressed in flowing silk robes and a a sturdy woman with a spear wearing glistening chain mail. Several times intelligent foes would have a group rush the wizard if the robed one got in a position she could be gotten to easily. That's when they would learn how many attacks a sword-sage/battle dancer can deal as the armored warmage blasted their leader/spellcasters.

[Xetheral]

Right and your conclusion is that they're zombies. It's the same difference.

You're apparently using what I would consider a highly non-standard definition of "zombie".

[EvilAnagram]

I really dislike the notion that intelligent monsters necessarily understand the mechanics of the game. There is no reason for the creatures in the game to possess meta-knowledge about the game.

Creatures should behave in a way that protects versimilitude. That means attacking the characters vapor ceive to be the biggest threat. If a creature is attacked by a high-AC fighter and a ranged rogue who deal similar damage, it does not make sense for the creature to risk an op attack to attack the rogue. Both are similar threats to the creature, and specifically targeting the lighter armor risking harm to itself is using meta-knowledge about the game's mechanics to guide actions.

When I DM, I follow these guidelines:
Unintelligent creatures attack whatever is nearest and most threatening.
Intelligent creatures attack the biggest threat and use basic tactics.
Very intelligent creatures use advanced tactics.

Obviously, RP can change these parameters.

[LudicSavant]

There is no reason for the creatures in the game to possess meta-knowledge about the game.

I don't think ad_hoc is suggesting that enemies should possess any meta-knowledge about the game. I think he's saying that a character who empties an entire clip into the Hulk because "he's easy to hit and not wearing a shirt" is acting with the approximate intelligence of a zombie. Moreso if the equivalent of the Hulk is not a unique creature, but instead a thing that has existed for pretty much the entirety of humanoidkind's history of warfare.

In real life, people can tell a lot more information than just "did I hit or miss?" If you attack someone who is just no-selling your attacks, it's often really obvious that it's not working unless they're actively bluffing. We can see a few examples of this in real life here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8_6JpBKOO8). These are not examples of genius-level foes, but after throwing a single punch you can tell they immediately realize something is seriously wrong. For anyone who actually has any idea how to fight, it's even more obvious.

I can only imagine that in a world full of actual superhuman heroes, it would be several times more obvious than in real life, which as we've just established already makes it really obvious.

Enemies should absolutely act according to their knowledge and motivations, but let us not underestimate the knowledge of enemies. Nor should we assume that they will evaluate threats in the same way that an earthling would, because they didn't grow up on earth. They grew up in a world where shirtless superhumans who can consistently survive being crushed in the jaws of a moon-sized monster are known to be a thing, and squishy people in robes can blow up legions when given a little breathing room. An earthling might not think of a scantily clad woman with a sprig of mistletoe as comparable to a howitzer pointed directly at their face, or a naked bodybuilder frothing at the mouth as being more durable than a castle wall, but that's only because on earth, they wouldn't be.

And, as Willie the Duck put it, "Once the spells start flying, who the biggest threat in a group is usually becomes pretty obvious."

[djreynolds]

Or conversely, as a DM how do you decide which creatures get attacked the most?

My players generally use the most time honored D&D tactic: choke points (natural or magical), lines of combat, and blocking access to the squishes.

On the DMing side, two very old school DMing decision making trees are to have intelligent monsters (using the term to include NPCs) attack those casting, attack lightly armored guys, or better yet attack one who are both. Unless, at least since 2e C&T, it will provoke an OA for doing so. In other words, target the (apparent) squishes.

I have a strong propensity towards monsters attacking those casting. What got me thinking about this: recently a player who had noticed this trend was in a broken front line situation, and had his heavily armored Cleric cast Bless and loudly proclaim (in front of the enemy, per my table talk rule) "Blessings on all my friends!". After the fight he told me it was his new tanking spell - Mark All Enemies. :smallamused:

I think you have to "judge" it on the enemy's intelligence or collective intelligence.

Its tough because sometimes the players plan for combat so effectively, it can really ruin and even trivialize the encounter.

On the other hand, if you start targeting the caster's, it can come off as vindictive.

So I try to go by the actual intelligence of the monsters, is their commander smart (who I'm sure the PCs would target), will a key death make the enemy ranks break.

A hill giant might be suckered in to the player's plot, but a cloud giant might see through. A party of drow really shouldn't get suckered in.

I think an intelligence or wisdom check on the enemy might suffice.

The DC would be tough to judge. Say 10 + the average level of the party, and then minus the average CR of the enemy. Then roll an intelligence check

[EvilAnagram]

I don't think ad_hoc is suggesting that enemies should possess any meta-knowledge about the game. I think he's saying that a character who empties an entire clip into the Hulk because "he's easy to hit and not wearing a shirt" is acting with the approximate intelligence of a zombie. Moreso if the equivalent of the Hulk is not a unique creature, but instead a thing that has existed for pretty much the entirety of humanoidkind's history of warfare.
If you're going up against an enemy whom you cannot harm, the intelligent thing to do is run away, not go after his friend while he kills you. I think a character who swings his sword at Black Widow and ignores the Hulk is far less intelligent than one who tries to fend off the Hulk's attacks.

And why is the DM throwing enemies that are incapable of harming someone at the party?

Edit: Also, I want replying to Ad_Hoc. I'm just throwing copper into the ring.

[LudicSavant]

If you're going up against an enemy whom you cannot harm, the intelligent thing to do is run away, not go after his friend while he kills you.

Okay, sure, it's an imperfect analogy. But surely you can recognize that we're not talking about a person who literally cannot be harmed, but rather one who cannot be harmed efficiently.

So, for example, let's say you had an enemy who had a weapon that they knew could gradually wear down the Hulk. OR they could choose to cast a crowd control spell that prevents the Hulk from attacking them, then go after Hawkeye before he puts perfectly accurate adamantium arrows through everyone's heads, and then try to wear down the crippled tank.

I know which one every group of PCs would pick. Are they "metagaming" for that option?

Edit: Responding to your edit!


Edit: Also, I want replying to Ad_Hoc. I'm just throwing copper into the ring.

Ah, my mistake. Apologies for misinterpreting you.

[EvilAnagram]

I know which one every group of PCs would pick. Are they "metagaming" for that option?

No, but that's because the situation has changed. The Hulk is not the biggest threat if he is paralyzed and Hawkeye is not. As per my list of priorities, target Hawkeye.

If the Much More Credible Hulk is active and magic is not an option, the smart thing to do is send a mid-level flunky after Hawkeye while the boss and the rest of the goon squad swarm the Hulk, occupying both of them and giving the Goonies the greatest chance of victory in a realistic scenario.

[Dudewithknives]

Every game I have played in or dmed it was the opposite. The “squishies” were not the ones in danger, it is the non-casters.

The only time I have seen squishies have big problems of below level 3 or when the group gets ambushed by people smart enough to target casters first.

Something big with an axe in your face?
Shocking grasp and walk away and find cover.
Misty step and either hide or cantrip the thing.
If it is very dangerous just teleport, nothing can stop you.

Mage Slayer is useless because it only works if you can see them, they are still in range and you still have a reaction to use.

Sentinel is about the same but at least it is good vs noncasters.

No main enemy villain that is a decent level caster should ever die to a group unless the group has multiple casters of their own of similar level, or they can burn it down in less than a turn.

What is the noncaster going to do?
Pray they can go toe to toe with it, and hope their own casters back them up.

[LudicSavant]

*snip*

The scenario I was trying to address was "durable turtle vs more offensively dangerous squishy." Hulk/Black Widow is probably not a great analogy for this because, as everyone knows, the Hulk isn't just more durable than Black Widow but also much more destructive.

Perhaps a better analogy than "The Hulk and Black Widow" would be "Luke Cage and Dr. Strange." Luke Cage can hypothetically be worn down by conventional weapons but it's really hard, while Doctor Strange is squishy but significantly more dangerous.

Anyways I think we're mostly on the same page and I misunderstood what you were responding to earlier.

[djreynolds]

Let's use the scenario of fighting giants. They're gonna throw big rocks at the party until someone gets in their face and is dangerous enough to keep their attention.

Let's say the fighter gets in there and is able to keep the giant swinging their club instead of throwing rocks.

Its going well until the archer scores a nasty critical hit or the warlock hits him with a nasty eldritch blast.

Whether it is anger or intelligence, the giant may have figured out the player's ploy, and will allow the fighter to hit him, but engage the others with rocks.

IMO, frost giant with an intelligence of 9 and a CR of 8, is smart enough to figure who is more dangerous, especially if the archer is turning him into a porcupine.

Whereas a hill giant with an intelligence of 5 and CR of 5, may not.

This is for the DM to weigh in on. I say come up with a DC that the DM could roll that takes into account the party's level, monster's smart (could be intelligence or wisdom), and the monster's CR, and the luck of the dice.

[EvilAnagram]

Every game I have played in or dmed it was the opposite. The “squishies” were not the ones in danger, it is the non-casters.

The only time I have seen squishies have big problems of below level 3 or when the group gets ambushed by people smart enough to target casters first.

Something big with an axe in your face?
Shocking grasp and walk away and find cover.
Misty step and either hide or cantrip the thing.
If it is very dangerous just teleport, nothing can stop you.

Mage Slayer is useless because it only works if you can see them, they are still in range and you still have a reaction to use.

Sentinel is about the same but at least it is good vs noncasters.

No main enemy villain that is a decent level caster should ever die to a group unless the group has multiple casters of their own of similar level, or they can burn it down in less than a turn.

What is the noncaster going to do?
Pray they can go toe to toe with it, and hope their own casters back them up.

This is nonsense. I DMed a group of four level 13 martial (two ranged) PCs against a level-20 caster (themed as a storm demigod) last week, and they managed to win. Hell, the fighter saved the day when the rogues were out of commission.

This armchair caster supremacy nonsense really needs to stop. Mage Slayer won't work? Shocking Grasp is a spell!!

[Dudewithknives]

This is nonsense. I DMed a group of four level 13 martial (two ranged) PCs against a level-20 caster (themed as a storm demigod) last week, and they managed to win. Hell, the fighter saved the day when the rogues were out of commission.

This armchair caster supremacy nonsense really needs to stop. Mage Slayer won't work? Shocking Grasp is a spell!!

Mage slayer goes after the spell has already happened. Shocking grasp takes away your reaction. You get to do nothing.
Read a spell before you get high and mighty about it.

If your level 20 caster lost to 4 marshals either they all won on initiative or you took it very easy on them.

Mage slayer is only a good spell if your dm wants to let you use it.

No martial ability comes first compared to spells, where all spell reactions come first.

Also if a fighter 2 rogues and some other martial beat a level 20 storm type full caster of level 20 when they were level 13 either you screwed up the rules like you just did with mage slayer, they set up an ambush and the rogues were assassins, or he roles garbage initiative.

[EvilAnagram]

Mage slayer goes after the spell has already happened. Shocking grasp takes away your reaction. You get to do nothing.
Read a spell before you get high and mighty about it.
It goes off when someone casts a spell. It does not say that it activates after the spell resolves. An opportunity attack doesn't activate after an enemy leaves your reach.


If your level 20 caster lost to 4 marshals either they all won on initiative or you took it very easy on them.
Granted, I introduced some interesting terrain effects they could use to their advantage with a skill check, but otherwise I wasn't going easy. Two were close to death, one was making death saves, and one spent the last few rounds under Power Word Stun.

Maybe clever tactics and some solid abilities (a monk and two rogues can make some solid saves) can win the day? I know you said that your players tear through challenges unless and you have a mage there, but have you considered the possibility that your inability to challenge your players without a caster has more to do with you than casters?


Mage slayer is only a good spell if your dm wants to let you use it.
That can be said about literally any ability. If every enemy has counterspell, mages can barely do anything.


No martial ability comes first compared to spells, where all spell reactions come first.
According to...


Also if a fighter 2 rogues and some other martial beat a level 20 storm type full caster of level 20 when they were level 13 either you screwed up the rules like you just did with mage slayer, they set up an ambush and the rogues were assassins, or he roles garbage initiative.
You clearly know all teh rules, but here's a thought: none of that is true. ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯

Except the garbage initiative, but I gave him legendary actions and he started the battle floating 80' in the air, so that didn't affect much.

For more details, he had a DC 21 spell save (demigods get legendary items), his AC was 17, he had mostly blasting spells with a couple thematic control spells, and he was an Aasimar, so he could add 20 radiant damage to a spell once/round.

[Tanarii]

I really dislike the notion that intelligent monsters necessarily understand the mechanics of the game. There is no reason for the creatures in the game to possess meta-knowledge about the game.
There has to be some degree of connection between game mechanics, their observable affect on the world, and what benefits various amounts of lore (generically, not skills) on the topics will provide.

I mean, I'm not suggesting tippyverse here. But if the vast majority of arcane casters are some variant of glass cannon, it's going to affect tactics in the world due to observable affects in the world. This assumes that arcane casters are common enough, or at least enough are famous and tales about them are told, for monsters/NPC to have any lore/tales as to fighting against them, of course. And that is a fairly huge assumption. As is tales being told being in any way accurate. YCMV.

Of course, the same logic can often backfire. As most people have a Dex mod of +0 or +1, going after lightly armored guys is probably an observably beneficial tactic in the world. Right up until you start fighting superhuman PCs with Dex off the charts and built in damage mitigation features. :smallamused:

[Dudewithknives]

It goes off when someone casts a spell. It does not say that it activates after the spell resolves. An opportunity attack doesn't activate after an enemy leaves your reach.


Granted, I introduced some interesting terrain effects they could use to their advantage with a skill check, but otherwise I wasn't going easy. Two were close to death, one was making death saves, and one spent the last few rounds under Power Word Stun.

Maybe clever tactics and some solid abilities (a monk and two rogues can make some solid saves) can win the day? I know you said that your players tear through challenges unless and you have a mage there, but have you considered the possibility that your inability to challenge your players without a caster has more to do with you than casters?


That can be said about literally any ability. If every enemy has counterspell, mages can barely do anything.


According to...


You clearly know all teh rules, but here's a thought: none of that is true. ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯

Except the garbage initiative, but I gave him legendary actions and he started the battle floating 80' in the air, so that didn't affect much.

For more details, he had a DC 21 spell save (demigods get legendary items), his AC was 17, he had mostly blasting spells with a couple thematic control spells, and he was an Aasimar, so he could add 20 radiant damage to a spell once/round.

According to the head designer it goes after.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/604502192549068801

Sentinel is the same, spells go first.

In that situation you horribly went easy on them.
The enemy started out of melee range, in the air, with legendary actions?

Monk, roguex2 and a fighter?

You did not make it a level 20 pc class or you let them win.

Monk is doing nothing from 80 feet in the air, if he was Kensei, by chance can stand there and do some basic bow shots like a fighter with no class abilities.
If the fighter is not an archer, same thing but at least the monk will for sure have good dex, fighter night not.
Rogue is going to have to find cover and bonus action hide just to sneak attack, assuming he hits at all with his one attack.

He was level 20 and only had a 17 AC?
I assume he was not made to pc standards because just having an 18 dex and mage armor give that.
Your level 20 mage/demigod had the ac of a level one guy in medium armor with no shield, good job.
Spell DC of 21: assuming 20 casting stat and 6 proficiency bonus that would just be a 19, so either you made him a total glass cannon or he was a warlock with a +3 rod of the pact keeper.

If he was a level 20 pc class that fight is a cakewalk.

Consider something else. Maybe you have no idea how to build or play a caster who actually wants to win.

Wizard:
Round 1: Time stop
X rounds of force cage.
They are now useless.
Heck make them barred style to trap more than one maybe and as soon as the time stop ends, Maddening darkness.
Subclass does not even matter.

Sorcerer is harder because no force cage.
How about twined power word kill. Unless your 2 rogues or monk rolled very well for their HP, they just died in round 1, no save.
OR
Just throw heightened Meteor swarm, anyone that does not beat the DC 23 dex save just died, even your rogue and monk would have to roll a 13 or better. The fighter even if he does save is going to be half dead.
or
Any other combination of metamagic and powerful spell.

Druid:
Laugh at them as they try to kill a level 20 moon druid.
The others cast massive control or areal spells to take them out.

Cleric:
Divine intervention: win

Bard: Magical secrets, just do what the wizard did.

If they won, you let them.

Wait: He was an aasimar:

Level 9 magic missile: Because JC must make sure basic wizard spells are broken. casting the spell is considered one spell, each missile is just a manifestation.
11 magic missiles that do 1d4 + 21 each, no save, no resistance, no nothing.
Pick who you want dead. nuke them and kind of hurt someone else.
Next round level 8 magic missile.
Next the same.

Win.

Yes, JC has ruled that it works that way.

There is a reason it is Wizards of the Coast and not Fighters of the Plains.

[Gastronomie]

There has to be some degree of connection between game mechanics, their observable affect on the world, and what benefits various amounts of lore (generically, not skills) on the topics will provide.I'm more or less inclined towards this view.

For instance, when I DM, if a Beholder (an intelligent creature) encounters an adventuring party, this Beholder will first observe the characters' physical features and at least get a good grasp of who's got high STR and DEX. Then it will proceed to observe the characters' actions on their first turns, and will by good chance figure out which "class" each adventurer belongs to.

From here the Beholder will estimate "which characters are bad at which saves" - and use that to its advantage by firing eye rays at the characters which are low in that score.

No, STR and DEX scores are not actual things in the world, but it's fairly obvious who looks strong and who looks fast if you look at the muscle or armor of the adventurers in front of you. And while "classes" may not be an actual concept either, something as ancient and intelligent as a Beholder will know that there are vaguely several types of casters and warriors in the world, each with their own strong points and weaknesses. Since the Beholder has probably TPK'ed several adventuring parties in the past, it's also got a good grasp of which type of adventurer tends to be weak to this specific eye ray, and so on. Rather, a Beholder should, to a certain extent, instinctively know which prey is weak to which ray. It's their primary weapon, after all.

As a result, even though the Beholder may not know "data in numbers", the process of RP'ing its knowledge and intelligence will more or less end up as "reading the characters' sheets".

(Of course, this does not mean that a Beholder can predict each and every spell that a Caster has prepared. However, it will at least be smart enough to order its minions to spread apart if there's multiple "blasters" in the party and it can't lock them all down with his central eye.

Figuring out which characters have methods to flight or ranged attacks and ordering its minions to kill them first is a no-brainer.)

[ad_hoc]

Others have been explaining a viewpoint close to mine, but I'll add again.

It's not about metagaming, it's about the reality of the situation.

If the enemy creatures are too afraid of the Fighter, then they should just be running away. If they are intimidated by the party why are they fighting? By this reasoning they should be Dodging every round as they are afraid of being killed. Not Dodging is allowing the scary person with the sword to hit them.

If their back is to the wall and they are fighting for their lives then attacking the weaker members of the party is their only hope so they should be doing that.

For a creature with a ton of HP, an OA isn't a big deal. This isn't metagaming. The monster should know what kind of punishment they can take and how dangerous pointy metal things really are to them.

For many creatures, it again, isn't a big deal. 1 or 2 characters should not be stopping a group of Orcs from charging in and attacking the vulnerable characters. Attack the person in plate and wielding a shield or the lightly armoured ones raining down energy blasts and arrows? There's 20 of us, 4 of you, and only 1 is well armoured. It's a super easy evaluation to make.

There are exceptions of course. Mindless creatures obviously can't differentiate. There is also the creature who has too much hubris and is showing off. Etc. Default though should be to attack the characters who are most easily killed.

[EvilAnagram]

There has to be some degree of connection between game mechanics, their observable affect on the world, and what benefits various amounts of lore (generically, not skills) on the topics will provide.
Right, but in the case of going up against a well-armored fighter, the connection is that the fighter is parrying and avoiding blows when they don't glance off of his armor. The best way to resolve that problem is to hang up on him, as a fighter is often the most direct threat to an enemy, and an effective one to boot.


I mean, I'm not suggesting tippyverse here. But if the vast majority of arcane casters are some variant of glass cannon, it's going to affect tactics in the world due to observable affects in the world. This assumes that arcane casters are common enough, or at least enough are famous and tales about them are told, for monsters/NPC to have any lore/tales as to fighting against them, of course. And that is a fairly huge assumption. As is tales being told being in any way accurate. YCMV.

Of course, the same logic can often backfire. As most people have a Dex mod of +0 or +1, going after lightly armored guys is probably an observably beneficial tactic in the world. Right up until you start fighting superhuman PCs with Dex off the charts and built in damage mitigation features. :smallamused:

I agree to an extent, but you only have the luxury of sweeping the back line when the front line is no longer advancing. A group of hobgoblins attacking the tanks while a couple of their monk guys sneak around the back to attack the wizard? Awesome. That's a fun approach to using tactics in D&D. Having every hobgoblin rush the wizard because focus fire is more mechanically useful is hogwash.

[Pelle]

Having every hobgoblin rush the wizard because focus fire is more mechanically useful is hogwash.

Agreed. IME, players are the worst offenders when it comes to this. I guess everyone should play themselves how they want others to play as well.

[EvilAnagram]

Agreed. IME, players are the worst offenders when it comes to this. I guess everyone should play themselves how they want others to play as well.

Yeah, but it's easy to a dress that with some solid front liners. If the fighter and the barbarian rush past the orc warchief, leaving the wizard open to attacks, they deserve what's coming to them.

[BobZan]

If you are a Knight in shining armor alongside with a semi-naked dude with a greataxe, a leatherarmored bowman and a purple-hooded gloomy spellcaster, don't expect to be the main target of my sapient creatures.

[EvilAnagram]

If you are a Knight in shining armor alongside with a semi-naked dude with a greataxe, a leatherarmored bowman and a purple-hooded gloomy spellcaster, don't expect to be the main target of my sapient creatures.
Do you think sapient creatures would ignore a major threat to their persons?

[BobZan]

Do you think sapient creatures would ignore a major threat to their persons?

Who said that?

[Pelle]

Yeah, but it's easy to a dress that with some solid front liners. If the fighter and the barbarian rush past the orc warchief, leaving the wizard open to attacks, they deserve what's coming to them.

I was mostly thinking about the focusing fire. When facing a big mighty wizard with a bunch of weak minions, it's probably smart to focus fire on the wizard in the fiction as well, not only because of the HP mechanics.

What I see more, is when facing a smaller group of equally powerful creatures, players are often very good at tactically focusing fire on one creature at the time. If they do so, it's only fair to expect that npcs do the same against the pcs, and not spreading the damage around. I prefer neither does that, though.

I would love a mechanical rule where undamaged creatures are 'fresh' and have some bonus, while heavily damaged creatures are 'bloodied' and have some penalties. Shouldn't be too severe to cause death spiral, but enough to encourage a more diverse targetting. Extra/fewer Bonus Actions, dis/advantage? This will probably be too fiddly for the HP abstraction, though...

[EvilAnagram]

Who said that?
No one. It's a question intended to clarify whether you think sapient creatures would ignore that dangerous knight to attack the guy in robes.


I was mostly thinking about the focusing fire. When facing a big mighty wizard with a bunch of weak minions, it's probably smart to focus fire on the wizard in the fiction as well, not only because of the HP mechanics.

What I see more, is when facing a smaller group of equally powerful creatures, players are often very good at tactically focusing fire on one creature at the time. If they do so, it's only fair to expect that npcs do the same against the pcs, and not spreading the damage around. I prefer neither does that, though.

I would love a mechanical rule where undamaged creatures are 'fresh' and have some bonus, while heavily damaged creatures are 'bloodied' and have some penalties. Shouldn't be too severe to cause death spiral, but enough to encourage a more diverse targetting. Extra/fewer Bonus Actions, dis/advantage? This will probably be too fiddly for the HP abstraction, though...

Ah. I rarely have that problem. Usually, they go in intending to focus fire, but then something catches one of them off guard, and a chaos cascade ensues. It's rare, in my experience, to find truly disciplined tactics.

[BobZan]

No one. It's a question intended to clarify whether you think sapient creatures would ignore that dangerous knight to attack the guy in robes.

They are all equaly dangerous, but why engage/surround the 'tuna can' when you can tactically avoid him while attacking the squishier dangerous threats.

[Willie the Duck]

The best way to resolve that problem is to hang up on him, as a fighter is often the most direct threat to an enemy, and an effective one to boot.

Except he's not. The most direct threat is the wizard who could paralyze this creature in their tracks, allowing the fighter to kill them at will. That is the threat that they 1) have the most ability to address, and 2) whose presence or absence in the fight, at this time, has the most direct consequences to the creature's likely survival.


I agree to an extent, but you only have the luxury of sweeping the back line when the front line is no longer advancing. A group of hobgoblins attacking the tanks while a couple of their monk guys sneak around the back to attack the wizard? Awesome. That's a fun approach to using tactics in D&D. Having every hobgoblin rush the wizard because focus fire is more mechanically useful is hogwash.

This is the problem. It isn't. In real life, yes, of course it is. And that's why IRL tactics are what they are--two front lines engage each other, with two back lines of (most often more overall-lethal, else why have them?) artillery are shielded from direct attack and lob their deadly volleys. Until one sides' front line is destroyed/routed (at least in an area, in the case of a breach), the back line is not attacked, because rushing past the front line to attack the artillery is somewhere between impossible and utterly suicidal. But if it weren't? If the negative consequences of doing so were relatively light (as they are in 5e)? It would be the optimal tactic, and evidently so.

You keep calling it hogwash, but really it is just hewing to a different perspective on verisimilitude--one where rational soldiers, whose lives are on the line, making tactically sound decisions based upon the rules of the universe as they apparently exist (and they have every reason to know, since magic isn't a new discovery, or the like. Nor did the OA rules suddenly change four years ago with an edition change, in-universe).

We can go round and round on what the right course of action is: having the characters behave how they would if the OA rules made rushing past the front line as dumb as it is in real life, changing the rules such that it really is a dumb idea, or the status quo. But calling it hogwash is just calling one preference better without reasoned justification.


Do you think sapient creatures would ignore a major threat to their persons?

No, which is why they would attack the wizard.

[ad_hoc]

Right, but in the case of going up against a well-armored fighter, the connection is that the fighter is parrying and avoiding blows when they don't glance off of his armor. The best way to resolve that problem is to hang up on him, as a fighter is often the most direct threat to an enemy, and an effective one to boot.



I agree to an extent, but you only have the luxury of sweeping the back line when the front line is no longer advancing. A group of hobgoblins attacking the tanks while a couple of their monk guys sneak around the back to attack the wizard? Awesome. That's a fun approach to using tactics in D&D. Having every hobgoblin rush the wizard because focus fire is more mechanically useful is hogwash.

The thing that separates hobgoblins from other evil humanoids is that they are brilliant military tacticians.

Playing them as though they are just run of the mill orcs or bandits or whatever is losing out on the one thing that they are known for. They should be terrifying in their precision and cleverness.

Here's an idea - What if the party prevented them from rushing the wizard? Spent some effort and resources into that? Then we have some interesting engagement. Just having one side be dumb isn't interesting, fun, or challenging.

[EvilAnagram]

They are all equaly dangerous, but why engage/surround the 'tuna can' when you can tactically avoid him while attacking the squishier dangerous threats.
Because you can't tactically avoid him. He can move to the enemy and attack. Quite effectively, actually. An enemy who keeps provoking an opportunity attack from a fighter or paladin in order to stab at the wizard is not behaving like a thinking person. They're behaving like the unthinking puppet of an antagonistic DM.


The thing that separates hobgoblins from other evil humanoids is that they are brilliant military tacticians.

Playing them as though they are just run of the mill orcs or bandits or whatever is losing out on the one thing that they are known for. They should be terrifying in their precision and cleverness.

Yes. That's why, in my example, they use reasonable tactics that can catch the players off guard(occupying the front line with powerful melee warriors while stealthily deploying specialists against the backline).

You don't have to use tactics based in meta-knowledge to make them effective.

[Dudewithknives]

The 5e system really dropped the ball when it came to tactics on a battlefield.

In 3.5/Pathfinder you could easily build a character who, if you provoked an attack of opportunity from, you are screwed, and there were many different ways to provoke them.
Cast in melee, get stabbed.
Try to move past me, get stabbed.
swing at me and miss get stabbed if I have certain feats
swing at me and hit, get stabbed if I have certain feats
charge me, get stabbed...
Try to leave my area safely, get stabbed.
Try to hit me, get your attack parried, and then stabbed.
Try to do plenty of things, probably get tripped, disarmed, parried or stabbed.

Heck, I played a swashbuckler who was FAR more dangerous on the enemies turn than on my own.
I only had 2 attacks at the time that were just ok.
But I had like 5 ways to make you provoke an AOO from just about anything and could hurt you even more on those attacks.

In 5e.
If you leave my area, AND I have not used my on reaction, AND I can see you, AND you do not have disengage, AND you didn't do it through magic, then I can make one attack.
Ummm yeah, that is it, unless you have the trap mage slayer feat.
Sentinel is great, but only against other martials.

There is no field tactics in 5e.

Here comes the 8 grunt hobgoblins.
Ok your 2 front liners will get one swing each, against someone, if they hit at all, it does just basic damage, and if you have sentinel they will stop.
The other 6 just ignore you and walk on by. If you don't have senintel, the ones you hit probably do too.

Martials are only dangerous at one thing, doing damage.
Even then you have to be in range, and there is nothing you can really do to keep them where you want without a specific feat.

In a game where the rules were designed to make sure that actions are not interupted as much anymore because it slows things down and takes out the fun.
Martial control got nerfed through the floor, and the safety of casters went through the roof.

Picture this:

You have a simple group of 4 party members, the classic 4.
Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Fighter.

You have to go and kill, evil caster X who is a little higher level than you because he is a lone villain but other than that is no different than any other built character.

If they are level 14 or higher you will never win that fight unless it is a total ambush.
Not saying that you will die, but you will definately not kill them.

If it looks dangerous, they teleport away...
That is it, fight over.
Nothing you can do will stop him.
You can't interrupt his spell because there are martial ways to stop the spell from happening, not even mage slayer which was worded specifically to makse sure it did not really threaten the caster overlords.
You can't counterspell him because he will just counterspell your counterspell.


It is like the old story of DND:

Your group of level 12 characters come over a hill, and 100 feet away you see the great evil level 20 fighter top the next hill.
The group is going to think, cool this should be a neat fight and we are going to get great loot.

Your group of level 12 characters come over a hill, and 100 feet away you see the great evil level 20 wizard top the next hill.
Your group starts planning what to build for the reboot.

Personally I hate 5e when it comes to caster and martial balance.
They did not even try to hide the fact they did not really care what martials were doing.

[EvilAnagram]

Except he's not. The most direct threat is the wizard who could paralyze this creature in their tracks, allowing the fighter to kill them at will.
What you're describing here is an indirect threat. "That guy could theoretically enable this guy to kill me." It may be a pressing threat, but the direct threat is, "This guy keeps stabbing me." Ignoring direct threats to focus on indirect threats only makes sense if the survival of the individual does not matter, which makes enemies simply DM puppets rather than characters that exist independently within the fiction.


This is the problem. It isn't. In real life, yes, of course it is. And that's why IRL tactics are what they are--two front lines engage each other, with two back lines of (most often more overall-lethal, else why have them?) artillery are shielded from direct attack and lob their deadly volleys. Until one sides' front line is destroyed/routed (at least in an area, in the case of a breach), the back line is not attacked, because rushing past the front line to attack the artillery is somewhere between impossible and utterly suicidal. But if it weren't? If the negative consequences of doing so were relatively light (as they are in 5e)? It would be the optimal tactic, and evidently so.
That explanation of battles simplifies it to the point of being incorrect. Attempting to outmaneuver your enemy was absolutely necessary, and routing through a flanking maneuver was frequently attempted. No one ever attempted to flank an enemy by ignoring another, however, as that's suicidal. It's also suicidal in 5e.


You keep calling it hogwash, but really it is just hewing to a different perspective on verisimilitude--one where rational soldiers, whose lives are on the line, making tactically sound decisions based upon the rules of the universe as they apparently exist (and they have every reason to know, since magic isn't a new discovery, or the like.
The DM-puppet approach, in which NPCs ignore their own survival to accomplish group goals as efficiently as possible, is discarding versimiltude because the characters stop behaving like characters.


But calling it hogwash is just calling one preference better without reasoned justification.
I've frequently argued for why it is hogwash.

[Dudewithknives]

What you're describing here is an indirect threat. "That guy could theoretically enable this guy to kill me." It may be a pressing threat, but the direct threat is, "This guy keeps stabbing me." Ignoring direct threats to focus on indirect threats only makes sense if the survival of the individual does not matter, which makes enemies simply DM puppets rather than characters that exist independently within the fiction.


That explanation of battles simplifies it to the point of being incorrect. Attempting to outmaneuver your enemy was absolutely necessary, and routing through a flanking maneuver was frequently attempted. No one ever attempted to flank an enemy by ignoring another, however, as that's suicidal. It's also suicidal in 5e.


The DM-puppet approach, in which NPCs ignore their own survival to accomplish group goals as efficiently as possible, is discarding versimiltude because the characters stop behaving like characters.


I've frequently argued for why it is hogwash.

The person who can wave their hand and take multiple people out of the fight or hamper the entire battlefield is much more of a threat than the person who can beat on one person if they are within 30ft.

Addmitedly if they are an archer that is a bigger issue because of their range, and better accuracy.

[R.Shackleford]

Personally I hate 5e when it comes to caster and martial balance.
They did not even try to hide the fact they did not really care what martials were doing.

Shhh... People tend to react as if you stabbed their puppy when you bring this up. They like something and thus it **must** be balanced.

Reminds me of all the people who say that 3.Pe was balanced.

Just nod your head and smile, it will save you quite a few headaches.

[EvilAnagram]

The person who can wave their hand and take multiple people out of the fight or hamper the entire battlefield is much more of a threat than the person who can beat on one person if they are within 30ft.

Addmitedly if they are an archer that is a bigger issue because of their range, and better accuracy.

Bigger, maybe, but that does not make it the more immediate problem. Heart disease is a bigger threat to me than whether or not my shower drains properly, but last night I dropped 30 dollars on Draino and forgot to walk.

Similarly, while it may be possible for the wizard to incapacitate multiple targets, it is suicidal to simply focus on the wizard when someone is stabbing you. A clever group of enemies will attempt to handle both problems simultaneously, which happens to create fun, engaging encounters for the whole party.

[ad_hoc]

People: "It is unfair to attack characters with low AC"
Also People: "Characters with low AC are overpowered"

People: "There are no tactics in 5e"
Also People: "It is poor design that I need to react to my environment, enemies, and party members to protect my party and shut down my enemies rather than just relying on the ability I picked out that which does the work for me"

[BobZan]

Because you can't tactically avoid him. He can move to the enemy and attack. Quite effectively, actually. An enemy who keeps provoking an opportunity attack from a fighter or paladin in order to stab at the wizard is not behaving like a thinking person. They're behaving like the unthinking puppet of an antagonistic DM.

You're talking about 1 monster that he engages, what about the others? Even on melee, the semi-naked angry dude waving a greataxe seems as threatening and easier to harm.

[EvilAnagram]

You're talking about 1 monster that he engages, what about the others? Even on melee, the semi-naked angry dude waving a greataxe seems as threatening and easier to harm.

Sure, let the enemy go after whatever frontliner seems most appropriate. But the NPCs should act in a rational way, and simply targeting the mage is not rational when a knight and a barbarian are bearing down on you.

[Willie the Duck]

What you're describing here is an indirect threat. "That guy could theoretically enable this guy to kill me." It may be a pressing threat, but the direct threat is, "This guy keeps stabbing me." Ignoring direct threats to focus on indirect threats only makes sense if the survival of the individual does not matter, which makes enemies simply DM puppets rather than characters that exist independently within the fiction.

You are correct, I was being lose with my language. That is an indirect threat. However, it is the most pressing threat. It is the one that has the biggest consequences to the individual, of those which they can do anything about (by choosing to attack the wizard, taking them and their huge LR-recharging abilities off the table.


That explanation of battles simplifies it to the point of being incorrect. Attempting to outmaneuver your enemy was absolutely necessary, and routing through a flanking maneuver was frequently attempted. No one ever attempted to flank an enemy by ignoring another, however, as that's suicidal. It's also suicidal in 5e.

I already addressed routing one's enemy. As to suicidal, it is not* suicidal in 5e, it is tactically sound. It draws a single OA, and ignores a minor threat in favor of a major one (which can more readily be addressed).
*barring the PCs thinking tactically, and taking choices like Sentinel, Booming blade with War caster, etc., hence ad_hoc's point.


The DM-puppet approach, in which NPCs ignore their own survival to accomplish group goals as efficiently as possible, is discarding versimiltude because the characters stop behaving like characters.

Okay, I don't think they are, because taking a very small single attack (in an game/edition where having huge amounts of hp and small attacks is the norm) to get to attack the tactically appropriate target is the reasonable, tactically sound course of action. However, we can disagree on that. The next question becomes, are they doing so because they are a verisimilitude-breaking DM puppet, or is the DM also under this impression, and running the monsters as tactically sound individuals who also believe attacking the wizard is a paramount concern?



I've frequently argued for why it is hogwash.
I don't see how this is relevant.

[Sigreid]

Okay, sure, it's an imperfect analogy. But surely you can recognize that we're not talking about a person who literally cannot be harmed, but rather one who cannot be harmed efficiently.

So, for example, let's say you had an enemy who had a weapon that they knew could gradually wear down the Hulk. OR they could choose to cast a crowd control spell that prevents the Hulk from attacking them, then go after Hawkeye before he puts perfectly accurate adamantium arrows through everyone's heads, and then try to wear down the crippled tank.

I know which one every group of PCs would pick. Are they "metagaming" for that option?

Edit: Responding to your edit!



Ah, my mistake. Apologies for misinterpreting you.

Hawkeye has always been the most dangerous Avenger and time and again the baddies don't realize this until it is too late.

[EvilAnagram]

You are correct, I was being lose with my language. That is an indirect threat. However, it is the most pressing threat. It is the one that has the biggest consequences to the individual, of those which they can do anything about (by choosing to attack the wizard, taking them and their huge LR-recharging abilities off the table.
Again, I disagree. The most pressing threat to the individual is being stabbed to death. The most pressing threat to the group is having the wizard disable a number of its members. Creating an engaging encounter involves managing both the individual and group motivations of the NPCs. That forces you to use tactical considerations that maintain the fun for the entire party. It's also one of the most basic question of warfare. "How do I stop X from hurting me while I take care of Y?" The solutions to this question are numerous, and they often lead to much more engaging conclusions than, "Everyone attacks the wizard."


I already addressed routing one's enemy. As to suicidal, it is not* suicidal in 5e, it is tactically sound. It draws a single OA, and ignores a minor threat in favor of a major one (which can more readily be addressed).
It is not tactically sound for that character. A fighter, paladin or barbarian can easily kill most level-appropriate mooks in a single round before level 10. Something that can kill a creature in one or two attacks is not a minor threat to that creature. Sure, the mage might banish one of the mooks or hypnotize a couple of them, but dying is worse. Having the creature completely ignore the threat of death is not a sound choice. Yes, the enemy must also contend with the mage, but having sensible creatures decide to die to kill a mage is not a reasonable way to address that threat.


I don't see how this is relevant.
You said: "But calling it hogwash is just calling one preference better without reasoned justification." However, I gave reasoned justification for why one approach is better and concluded that the other approach is hogwash.

[BobZan]

I tend to challenge all players in combat. Most combats no one is in a comfortable position on the first rounds so they have to act smart throughout the battle or be penalized by their opponents.

I use the enemies at their best everytime. My players love the challenge.

[Sigreid]

While I think it's hinky to have melee foes carelessly run past the melee for, it's perfectly logical for their archers to send their volleys at the back row.

Edit: of course the wizard can attach a sign to his staff that says "totally not a wizard "

[EvilAnagram]

I tend to challenge all players in combat. Most combats no one is in a comfortable position on the first rounds so they have to act smart throughout the battle or be penalized by their opponents.

I use the enemies at their best everytime. My players love the challenge.

I think that's the best approach. No one should feel safe during combat. That's what makes it a fun, challenging game.

[Willie the Duck]

Again, I disagree. The most pressing threat to the individual is being stabbed to death. The most pressing threat to the group is having the wizard disable a number of its members. Creating an engaging encounter involves managing both the individual and group motivations of the NPCs. That forces you to use tactical considerations that maintain the fun for the entire party. It's also one of the most basic question of warfare. "How do I stop X from hurting me while I take care of Y?" The solutions to this question are numerous, and they often lead to much more engaging conclusions than, "Everyone attacks the wizard."

No, although as you stated, it is the most direct threat, but as we've established, pressing <> direct. If the guy with the sword is dishing out survivable wounds, but the wizard is laying down encounter-ending abilities, then the wizard's threat is more pressing, even on an individual level. This is divergent from the real world, where ignoring the guy with the sword pretty much means you get stabbed in the back before you get to the wizard. But in the world where you can readily survive a sword attack, 'everyone swarm the wizard, if they get a spell off we are all dead!' can make this a valid strategy, even for individual opponents.


It is not tactically sound for that character. A fighter, paladin or barbarian can easily kill most level-appropriate mooks in a single round before level 10. Something that can kill a creature in one or two attacks is not a minor threat to that creature. Sure, the mage might banish one of the mooks or hypnotize a couple of them, but dying is worse. Having the creature completely ignore the threat of death is not a sound choice. Yes, the enemy must also contend with the mage, but having sensible creatures decide to die to kill a mage is not a reasonable way to address that threat.

Okay, I just don't agree with that first part as a general rule. That is going to be very dependent upon the encounter. A level-appropriate mook can be something a fighter can take in one round or three. It's going to depend. Mind you, if the fighter, etc. can take out the enemy in one hit, that completely changes things. Then you can't give up the OA to go take the wizard, because you won't even get there. That's suicide. It's also a very specific case.

I think we might be disagreeing upon how much of a relative threat the warriors and spellcasters are. If the spellcaster genuinely isn't a bigger threat (which I contend), then of course giving up a hit to preferentially attack them wouldn't make sense. Reward X vs Reward Y but with consequence Z isn't going to make sense if X=Y. I just don't think X does equal Y. Towards that end, if spellcasters aren't a bigger threat, given their mostly LR-recharging benefits while the martials have mostly at-will abilities (and better HP, etc.) why is anyone ever playing a spellcaster? If they get nothing (in terms of added power) to compensate them for their fragility, why are people playing them, flavor-not-withstanding?

On a more meta level, given that each level-appropriate encounter is a group of combatants that ought to (statistically) have very little chance against the PCs, and only be there to absorb the party's expendable resources, shouldn't the genuine, verisimilitude-non-breaking tactical solution be to always run? Only lethal+ CR encounters should ever bother sticking around because all of the rest of them are suicidal charges against vastly superior forces with the entire group being expendable?

[EvilAnagram]

snip

Okay, I think we need to define a few terms.

When I say, "mook," I'm referring to minor enemies that serve a more important master and are generally unremarkable when compared to their peers. That means major enemies an encounter may revolve around are not mooks.

Going back to hobgoblins, the standard hobgoblin is a mook, and the average strike from a raging barbarian or a fighter/paladin/ranger with the appropriate fighting style can kill them in one hit roughly 40% of the time by level 2. By level 4, it's the average hit. It's easy to structure engaging CR-appropriate challenges with them through level 7, unaltered.

By level 10, most martial characters are able to deal over 24 points of damage on an average turn, with options to do much more. Even without GWM, a fighter of that level can drop a knight in a single turn. Treating a dangerous enemy as though he is not a risk is foolish.

Granted, solo monsters or even groups of two or three have a lot more tactical ground to cover.

[Tanarii]

You don't have to use tactics based in meta-knowledge to make them effective.
Knowing about how dangerous OAs are yo you isnt metaknowledge. At least to the degree that you have some expectation of what enemies might be capable of dishing out.

Your problem here may be that in the 5e universe, OAs aren't necessarily lethal to heroes, villains, and powerfup monsters. And the should know what and act accordingly.

Ditto for armored and armed warrior vs unarmed and unarmored spellcaster. The latter is almost invariably immediately dangerous, especially to larger groups, in the short run. Unless they are out of or conserving spells.

[EvilAnagram]

Knowing about how dangerous OAs are yo you isnt metaknowledge. At least to the degree that you have some expectation of what enemies might be capable of dishing out.

Your problem here may be that in the 5e universe, OAs aren't necessarily lethal to heroes, villains, and powerfup monsters. And the should know what and act accordingly.

Ditto for armored and armed warrior vs unarmed and unarmored spellcaster. The latter is almost invariably immediately dangerous, especially to larger groups, in the short run. Unless they are out of or conserving spells.

I think it's silly to treat fighters as less than mortally dangerous to a creature they can kill in three hits. For example, my group fought a bunch of Yuan-ti with PC classes riding acid-spewing flying lizards recently. A warrior flew right by the fighter to attack my character because the DM ascribes to the same "casters are worse" ethos on display in this thread. The fighter killed his boss the next turn.

Granted, I was also doing nasty stuff, but the idea that Fighters aren't worth tactical consideration is ludicrous. I could spread damage out to quite a lot of them and disable them effectively, but the fighter was able to kill one every turn.

Also, larger groups have less reason to ignore a fighter because part of the group can deal with him while others rush the back line. Smart tactics should be about handling the whole threat, not impaling yourself on your enemy's spear to spit in his face.

[Dudewithknives]

Think of it from the position of the mooks.

There is a party of level 7 heroes, the basic party of 4.
Wizard, Fighter, Rogue and Cleric.

There is a Hobgoblin leader, and his collection of 12 henchmen.

At most, if he is lucky the rogue is going to kill one mook a turn. Rogue just don't target groups worth a crap.
The fighter can probably kill 2 a turn, if he hits them all, but probably averages one kill a turn.
The cleric and the wizard can shutdown the whole fight or kill most of the mooks with one good spell.
The cleric will probably have on decent armor and probably have a shield.
The wizard will burn shield to get 5 ac for the turn, which in a system of "bound accuracy" which is what they try to call it and then add things like pass without trace that adds 10 stealth or GWM/SS that adds 10 damage, but not to drift off on other stupid mechanic ideas.

Now who is the bigger threat to the 12 henchmen and the leader.
The guy who will never hurt more than one person a turn and had crap ac?
The bigger guy ho can hurt 2 people a turn but has to get up on someone to do it?
Or the guy in the back with just as good of ac as the big guy and can throw a fireball/lightning bolt/big crowd control spell, and ruin all your chances?

In 5e, people need to stop thinking of people having roles like in an MMO, there is no such thing as a tank because no NPC is required to attack an enemy just because the guy with a sword is on them.
The guy with armor and a shield is not any more dangerous than anyone else on the battlefield and is usually less dangerous because if he has a sword and shield you know he is not going to be using the broken combat feats of PAM/GWM/SS/CBE. So who cares what he does?
At most he will hamper and stop one person. Big deal. send 3 mooks to get in his face and ignore him.
Numbers win fights in 5e, because they took all the tools of defense out for martials.
1 OA a turn, even if it is a very good one like a sneak attack or a smite, is still just a guy occupying one person.

You could have a level 20 Monster of a Barbarian standing in the middle of the main gates to the city and taking a noble stand to buy people time to escape.
In 3.5/pathfinder, he is going to be a major issue to deal with because he will deny so much movement and splatter people left and right that try to deal with him with multiple AoO.
In 5e.
He kills one mook, and the rest of the group just runs right by him like he is not even there.

In a system where they toned down how many attacks people can get, GREATLY toned down how many defensive actions you can take, and essentially gave everything in the game spring attack, there is no such thing as "tanking" or even "Front lining". More people just plain win most of the time... but how do you deal with big numbers of mooks... with casters.
Due to the way the system is built, 20 level 5s are much more dangerous than 3 level 10s... again unless they are casters.

Think of it like this:
In 3.5/Pathfinder what happens if the peasant army of 100 farmers with clubs and shortbows tries to attack the level 12 Fighter/Barbarian/whatever non-caster you want?
The farmers get slaughtered, it may take like 30 rounds depending on the builds, or it may take like 15, but the PC class is going to win.

In 5e. what is going to happen to the same level 12 fighter/barbarian/noncaster vs 100 level 1 grunts with clubs and rocks?
The level 12 will be dead in about 2 rounds.

The system is a failure of balance and a failure of combat design.
People just live with it and move on, or play something else.

[Sigreid]

All well and good until you put yourself in the place of the goblin that is expected to run past the fighter and take one for the team.

[Dudewithknives]

All well and good until you put yourself in the place of the goblin that is expected to run past the fighter and take one for the team.

If he is a member of the group that would make him pretty brave. He can only hit one of you, run in a pack.
He doesn't he will be one of about 12 who run past. Meanwhile the goblin who is unlucky enough to get the OA, well, that is why their boss has peons.

[Sigreid]

If he is a member of the group that would make him pretty brave. He can only hit one of you, run in a pack.
He doesn't he will be one of about 12 who run past. Meanwhile the goblin who is unlucky enough to get the OA, well, that is why their boss has peons.

I think this highlights my core problem. The DM doesn't have any attachment to the mobs and can make these decisions just because it's just a goblin.

[Dudewithknives]

I think this highlights my core problem. The DM doesn't have any attachment to the mobs and can make these decisions just because it's just a goblin.

Why should they, their orc/hobgoblin/whatever commander would not care in the least about them.

If the group wants to make it out of there alive, some of them are going to die, they can either fight like a bunch of cowering mooks and get picked off one by one, or they can rush they guy capable of killing them all with one spell.

Now, on the other hand I hate the idea of the DM metagaming against the party.

Ex.

I was playing a swashbuckler rogue, but I loved to play music and dressed in fancy outfits and carried a flute when not in combat.

Multiple times the DM forgot I was not playing a bard and would rush me with one guy only for me to smile at the idea of my swashbuckler getting to go one on one with someone, which is what they are best at, only for the DM to go, "Oh wait, I forgot you are a rogue not a bard, nevermind he does not rush you, that would be stupid."

Or

When the NPCs just so happen to know that the guy in medium armor, carrying a shield and a longsword is actually a Hexblade and not a Palafin so they know that he is not going to nova smite them.

That I absolutely hate.

[EvilAnagram]

snip

This is a perfect example of treating creatures like DM puppets instead of characters. It's also a fine example of an unimaginative battle with no tactical variability.

Hobgoblins wouldn't swarm that way because they're people, and as people they would want to both win and survive. Against a party of four, the smart move would be to not be a group of 12, first and foremost. Drop 8 of those standard hobgoblins for Iron Shadows that teleport to the wizard and take him on directly. The captain and two hobgoblins then confront the fighter while the other two take on the rogue or cleric.

See that? Now we have a spread-out group that's less susceptible to AoE and is presenting a considerable threat (they deal extra damage when near each other). The fighter could conceivably fall under this assault at level 7 (when I would run it), as could the wizard. If they did, it could set the PCs on edge before they turn the tide. That's exciting and fun, whereas swarm-o-gobbos is neither. As a plus, it makes the hobgoblin force seem like a group of intelligent, capable characters, while the swarm feels like a bunch of thoughtless puppets.

[ad_hoc]

Orcs:

"savage raiders and pillagers"
"Their lust for slaughter demands that orcs dwell always within striking distance of new targets"
"To this day, the orcs wage an endless war on humans, elves, dwarves, and other folk"


Nowhere in the orc description did I find "terrified of the bad man with the sword"

[Xetheral]

On a more meta level, given that each level-appropriate encounter is a group of combatants that ought to (statistically) have very little chance against the PCs, and only be there to absorb the party's expendable resources, shouldn't the genuine, verisimilitude-non-breaking tactical solution be to always run? Only lethal+ CR encounters should ever bother sticking around because all of the rest of them are suicidal charges against vastly superior forces with the entire group being expendable?

That's what I do. Overmatched opponents usually flee/surrender unless (i) fleeing is impossible, or (ii) they're willing to die to achieve some goal other than winning the combat (like delaying/weakening the PCs). If the PCs want to annihilate a weaker foe, the challenge comes from finding a strategy that either prevents (or disincentivizes) escape or kills the foes before they successfully run away.

Note however, that I run sandbox games in a combat-as-war style. There is no expectation at my table that I place encounters specifically to use up the party's resources. Instead, combat encounters (against intelligent foes) happen organically when (and where) both sides want to engage, or one side has found a way to force the encounter. If the enemies with a choice are willing to stick around for a stand-up fight, that means they either (possibly mistakenly) think they can win, or else they have a goal other than winning.

[Sigreid]

Why should they, their orc/hobgoblin/whatever commander would not care in the least about them.

If the group wants to make it out of there alive, some of them are going to die, they can either fight like a bunch of cowering mooks and get picked off one by one, or they can rush they guy capable of killing them all with one spell.

Now, on the other hand I hate the idea of the DM metagaming against the party.

Ex.

I was playing a swashbuckler rogue, but I loved to play music and dressed in fancy outfits and carried a flute when not in combat.

Multiple times the DM forgot I was not playing a bard and would rush me with one guy only for me to smile at the idea of my swashbuckler getting to go one on one with someone, which is what they are best at, only for the DM to go, "Oh wait, I forgot you are a rogue not a bard, nevermind he does not rush you, that would be stupid."

Or

When the NPCs just so happen to know that the guy in medium armor, carrying a shield and a longsword is actually a Hexblade and not a Palafin so they know that he is not going to nova smite them.

That I absolutely hate.

Said goblin should care about his own survival. A much better tactic would be for a couple of the goblins to engage the fighter creating room for the others to safely pass.

[Astofel]

I think that the 'always prioritise targeting casters' mentality is a holdover from the days of 'casters rule, martials drool' and completely ignores the fact that 5e martials are actually incredibly dangerous and likely far more capable of directly killing you than most casters.

For instance, the group I DM for is a paladin, a bear totem barbarian, a war cleric, and a mystic. So three tanky dudes and one squishy. On the scale of a single turn, sure a monster could run past the paladin or barbarian and eat a single OA to stab the mystic. But what happens on the next turn? Obviously the paladin or barbarian go to help out the mystic and unleash their attacks on the monster with impunity. After all, it's not going to strike back because targeting the caster is more important, right?

Running past the front line to get to the caster only puts the monster in the direct line of fire of two characters at once. Better to just deal with the paladin by himself, never mind how heavily armoured he is, because if you try to leave him behind he'll just chase you down. And the barbarian over there keeps leaving himself open (Reckless Attack) so it'd be a good idea to take advantage of that. And ignore the war cleric at your own peril, because she loves Sprititual Guardians and she's making sure you're in range. The mystic's a nuisance, sure, but she won't be so tough without her bodyguards, so once they're down we can take care of her easily.

In short my tank players stop me from targeting the squishy by simply putting out too much damage to be safely ignored.

[sophontteks]

I think that the 'always prioritise targeting casters' mentality is a holdover from the days of 'casters rule, martials drool' and completely ignores the fact that 5e martials are actually incredibly dangerous and likely far more capable of directly killing you than most casters.
My thoughts exactly. I was reading the latter comments and it didn't sound like 5e to me. Casters are pretty weak damage dealers. Good at AOE early on and vs. weak little minions, but thats far from their main strength.

[Man_Over_Game]

Mashing yourself up against the Paladin isn't going to really do much, though. If you're in a position where you could attack the Mage and the Paladin, and attacking the Mage gets you killed, you're gonna die no matter what you do.

But at least if you attack the Mage, he gets disadvantage on his ranged attacks, he breaks concentration, he grants you an extra attack if he runs away, you have a better chance of hitting, or he disengages and loses out on his spell.

Let someone else deal with the Paladin. If the conclusion is "well, I'm gonna die if I run past this Paladin" then maybe taking him on in a fair fight isn't the best choice.


Martials ARE dangerous in 5E, but they aren't going to be any less dangerous if you decide to approach them rather than the Paladin breaking ranks to fend you off of their healer/blaster.

If I was a cruel DM, I'd just have all of my guys Dodge action, run past the front line until the heroes' frontline either blows all of their reactions so that the rest of my units can run past and attack the squishies, or until all of my units are adjacent to your casters, in the center of your team, and Dodging. They can disengage and waste a turn, attack and probably have disadvantage, or run and take three Attacks of Opportunity in the back, while your melee fighters try to figure out how to deal with an adjacent army of Goblins while they have Disadvantage to hit them.

Unless a mage had Thunderwave, or you had an Evocation Wizard who could shape explosive spells, that's a really annoying situation to deal with.

[sophontteks]

Mashing yourself up against the Paladin isn't going to really do much, though. If you're in a position where you could attack the Mage and the Paladin, and attacking the Mage gets you killed, you're gonna die no matter what you do.

But at least if you attack the Mage, he gets disadvantage on his ranged attacks, he breaks concentration, he grants you an extra attack if he runs away, you have a better chance of hitting, or he disengages and loses out on his spell.

Let someone else deal with the Paladin. If the conclusion is "well, I'm gonna die if I run past this Paladin" then maybe taking him on in a fair fight isn't the best choice.


Martials ARE dangerous in 5E, but they aren't going to be any less dangerous if you decide to approach them rather than the Paladin breaking ranks to fend you off of their healer/blaster.

If I was a cruel DM, I'd just have all of my guys Dodge action, run past the front line until the heroes' frontline either blows all of their reactions so that the rest of my units can run past and attack the squishies, or until all of my units are adjacent to your casters, in the center of your team, and Dodging. They can disengage and waste a turn, attack and probably have disadvantage, or run and take three Attacks of Opportunity in the back, while your melee fighters try to figure out how to deal with an adjacent army of Goblins while they have Disadvantage to hit them.

Unless a mage had Thunderwave, or you had an Evocation Wizard who could shape explosive spells, that's a really annoying situation to deal with.
The only spells at disadvantage are ranged magic attacks, which is almost completely made up of cantrips. Its not really hurting the caster to cast spells in the enemy's face.

Take the dodge action, give up attacks, take reaction fire, and run right into a disadvantageous position just for the casters to misty step/shield/invisibility away all while the tanks continue to wail on them. Meanwhile the enemy backline has to give up their defensive position just to keep up.

I mean, it certainly depends on the situation and the enemy, but rushing the back-line certainly has consequences, espesially if the players are used to these tactics and just lure the enemy into a trap.

[Astofel]

Mashing yourself up against the Paladin isn't going to really do much, though. If you're in a position where you could attack the Mage and the Paladin, and attacking the Mage gets you killed, you're gonna die no matter what you do.


When the dice aren't screwing me over (which they often are, this paladin's luck is much more protective than his AC) the monsters I use are typically capable of threatening the paladin, if not one-on-one then at least in pairs. It's just that unless the monsters already have someone holding his attention, then running past him to get to the mystic is only going to 'aggro' the both of them. Doesn't help that this particular mystic is a Nomad and thus has roughly three different means of teleporting out of danger. The default strategy for my intelligent but not super mobile monsters tends to be 'occupy the tanks so someone else can get to the squishy'.

[Man_Over_Game]

I have a tendency to focus on low-level tactics, I keep forgetting most mid-range casters have teleports.

[sophontteks]

I have a tendency to focus on low-level tactics, I keep forgetting most mid-range casters have teleports.
I remember my first DM experience with 5e. I had a really nasty attacker on the team's wizard. I figured he was dead. Nope. Freaking wizard had 21 AC with shield and mage armor up. Dodged everything. I was dumbfounded honestly.

[Sigreid]

Against swarming mooks my evoker's defensive tactic is fireball, not teleport. hehe