Thinking about ways to run more tactically-interesting encounters without going mad

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll admit. Running tactically-challenging encounters is not exactly my strong suit as a DM. I prioritize (for a bunch of reasons) speed of resolution and hate having to look things up. So complex fights or complex tactics or complex monsters are rather lost on me as a DM. It's something I'm trying to improve on now that I'm between games for a bit.

Here are some of the ideas I've had (discussion is welcome)--

Taking a page from 4e and labeling tactics in advance: 4e did this mechanically (Soldiers vs Brutes vs Controllers vs Artillery, etc). I'm thinking of just doing it for tactics. Each monster (or group of identical monsters) would get a label with their default tactics. This could vary between encounters--in one an orc may be a brute, in another a skirmisher.

* Brutes would try to rush into melee combat and engage the strongest type. They'd rarely worry about things like losses or being hit, preferring to slug things out.
* Skirmishers would try to get around the front line and strike weak points (including squishies). They'd be prone to disengaging and hit-and-run tactics. Ranged skirmishers would pick a single target and try to drop that one, preferring to avoid the big types.
* Artillery try to stay at range and blast (either ranged weapons or spells/abilities), preferring aoe where possible.
* Controllers try to stay at range and use battlefield control abilities and spells, using damaging spells when control isn't an option or is already established.
* Support try to buff or heal their allies, only attacking when necessary.

Simplifying spell-casters. Spell-casting monsters are my bane. Encounters are too short for the resource limits to really bite, and they have too many abilities to remember/sort through each turn, especially if they're not the only one doing things. So picking 1-2 big concentration spells by role and a (short, 2-3 item) priority list of other spells. Basically, no more than 4 or 5 total abilities. Turn slots into #/day (basically doing the up-casting math ahead of time). Write the actual text of the ability (including the DCs and attack bonus) into the stat block where relevant or where it's a bit more obscure. I mean...I know what magic missile does. I'm less sure about some other spells. So if I'm rushed or trying to pay attention to other people, I'll default to the simple ones I know rather than the complex ones I'd have to look up.

Preset monster groups. So in a bandit encounter I'd have something like

* a group of archer-bandits. These are skirmishers, armed with bows and will always default to ranged attacks unless cornered. They'll come from <directions>.
* a group of melee-bandits. These are either brutes or skirmishers (depending on the details of the encounter). They'll come from the front and behind (ambush).
* Maybe a leader-bandit (more health or a bigger stat block like bandit captain). The others won't run if he's around. Comes with the front group

"Personality" tags Things that modify the role assignment like

* cowardly (this one will always try to run at <condition>).
* aggressive (this one will always charge straight in).
* smart (this one will change tactics and gun for the squishies to break concentration, etc)
* dumb (this one has no clue about things like concentration).

The idea of all of this is to generate as much of the tactics ahead of time so that I don't have to think about it on the spot.

Thoughts? Anything you've done to do this better without creating all your monsters differently or using only 1-2 monsters (or 1-2 fights per session)?

[OldTrees1]

Dungeonscape (a D&D 3.5E splatbook) has a good (edition agnostic) section on encounter design and the roles (pg 95) various being might play. This is a bit like a more in depth version of the 4E labels but without doing the legwork of labeling each monster.

Here is a paraphrase:
Ambusher: A monster that attacks from hiding.
Archer: A monster that attacks at range.
Blocker: A monster that prevents and blocks movement through an area. Sentinel feat in 5E, an Assassin Vine, or a monster that can just block off passage.
Bruiser: A brute.
Buffer: A monster that buffs others.
Burner: A monster with AoE damage.
Defender: A Tank
Enchanter: A monster with mind control. Take control of an enemy.
Flanker: A fast melee combatant that attempts to flank the enemy. Think of IRL flanking manuevers.
Freezer: A monster that reduces or prevents the mobility of the enemy.
Hoser: A monster that debuffs the enemy in ways that last long after the encounter.


You have some bandits. Let's see what we can do The classic is a bunch of ambushers, but for these examples let's use a minimum of 3 types:

Example 1:
Several Flanker + Hoser pairs are riding double. The Flankers move them close enough for the Hoser to hit the party. The ambush party retreats past 2 Flanker + Freezer pairs that cover the escape.

Example 2:
Up on a ridge are a few Archers and a Buffer. As the party looks for cover and a way up to the ridge they come face to face with a Blocker (probably need enough to block 2-3 routes since players are clever). Can the party get through or around the blocker fast enough to take care of the archers? Or will they need to retreat to more advantageous ground?

Example 3:
2 Freezers wait for the party to start to pass. Then the start to immobilize the party. Up ahead a Burner and a 2 Archers start to shred the party. The Burner lays down a decent start of damage and the Archers focus fire on who they can drop quickest. Who does the party deal with first? The ones preventing them from moving? The one dealing the more damage? Or the pair downing them one by one?

Example 4:
2 Bruiser (guards), 1 Defender (Boss), with 2 Enchanters. The guards and the boss keep the party occupied while the enchanters start removing PCs. The boss tries to keep the guards alive long enough for the battle to turn in their favor.

[MaxWilson]

The idea of all of this is to generate as much of the tactics ahead of time so that I don't have to think about it on the spot.

Thoughts? Anything you've done to do this better without creating all your monsters differently or using only 1-2 monsters (or 1-2 fights per session)?

Yes, "I have found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable." The key to good tactics is forethought and practice.

For example, it probably doesn't occur to a new DM the first time he looks at a T Rex stat block that 50' movement plus a grappling/restraining attack is perfect for defeating the PCs in detail. Grab one PC in your mouth then immediately move away to finish eating in peace. (Even if you take an opportunity attack or two, so what? It's generally better than taking a full attack sequence.) However, once you've seen this tactic a few times it just becomes yet another tactic that is obvious when you see a high-movement grappling monster.

Another example is any monster with a Legendary Action attack, like a dragon or Mummy Lord. Dodge + Legendary Attacks is often quite good. (I think I actually learned that one from a discussion with you, PhoenixPhyre, about Astral Dreadnoughts.)

Incorporeal Movement is another ability which is much, much better than it seems at first, especially against spellcasters. Break contract by moving through a wall or hiding in the ground, denying enemy attacks at the price of only 1d10 damage per round (or zero if there's a wall to hide behind instead of solid ground). Wait out spells like Spiritual Weapon and Haste, then resume the attack on your own initiative.

Not all tactics are appropriate for all monsters, from a roleplaying angle, but it's easier to rule out kiting for a T Rex if it's inappropriate than to invent it on the fly when it is appropriate.

Is this thread supposed to be a thread for sharing specific nasty tactics, usable by monsters? I have more to say, and am also interested in learning from others.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, "I have found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable." The key to good tactics is forethought and practice.

For example, it probably doesn't occur to a new DM the first time he looks at a T Rex stat block that 50' movement plus a grappling/restraining attack is perfect for defeating the PCs in detail. Grab one PC in your mouth then immediately move away to finish eating in peace. (Even if you take an opportunity attack or two, so what? It's generally better than taking a full attack sequence.) However, once you've seen this tactic a few times it just becomes yet another tactic that is obvious when you see a high-movement grappling monster.

Another example is any monster with a Legendary Action attack, like a dragon or Mummy Lord. Dodge + Legendary Attacks is often quite good. (I think I actually learned that one from a discussion with you, PhoenixPhyre, about Astral Dreadnoughts.)

Incorporeal Movement is another ability which is much, much better than it seems at first, especially against spellcasters. Break contract by moving through a wall or hiding in the ground, denying enemy attacks at the price of only 1d10 damage per round (or zero if there's a wall to hide behind instead of solid ground). Wait out spells like Spiritual Weapon and Haste, then resume the attack on your own initiative.


These are good ideas. I tend to see things like this...and then forget all about them in the heat of the moment. So for me, writing them down in a systematic fashion that takes little thought to implement (ie something like a tag system) will, I think, be key.



Not all tactics are appropriate for all monsters, from a roleplaying angle, but it's easier to rule out kiting for a T Rex if it's inappropriate than to invent it on the fly when it is appropriate.

Is this thread supposed to be a thread for sharing specific nasty tactics, usable by monsters? I have more to say, and am also interested in learning from others.

If you have more ideas for specifics, that's fine. But also more general "organizing things so you don't forget about <X> ability" discussion would also be nice. I find that spell-casters and other complex monsters (including legendaries) are particularly prone to that problem. Remembering that a creature can do something off-turn and tracking that is painful. To the point that I often forgo legendary actions for bosses and just add in "pseudo-mooks". Like a demon thing I ran--it had a head and four tentacles (of two different types). Each one rolled its own initiative and had its own (very limited) set of actions and HP/defenses. In the fiction it was one creature, but in play it was 5.

[Unoriginal]

I think your ideas will already go a long way toward helping your problem, PhoenixPhyre, but here's three pieces of advice I can offer to complete it:


1) On simplifying casters: I've found that it's often not looking up the spells that make it a chore, it's having to search and find them. Having the spells printed out or each open in a separate tab might help making it less bothersome

2) Foes and Identities: All the monsters in the game, even those who actively lack a personality, have an identity, and combat is often the only time they get express it. Like all NPCs, I think it's best to try to get in their head, and ask yourself in which way they'd choose to fight and why, and make it just another part of their personalities to inform their in-game decisions.

Duergar are dour, strive to act emotionless, and the only things they hate more than having to do work are dwarves, Illithids, Moradin, and having to do more work than what is necessary. This makes me imagine the basic Duergar combatant as adopting an unimaginative, repetitive fighting style, treating their opponents as if they were just another rock to break or another metal piece to bend, moving to land heavy strikes with their combat pickaxes while conserving energy as much as possible, since once they're done with that thing there's another thing to do.

Meanwhile, a Young Green Dragon is prideful, deceitful, like to toys with others and likely hasn't learned other beings can hurt them badly yet, even if they know it intellectually. That makes me imagine an hyperactive tornado of feints, bites and claws, constantly moving and turning and keeping tabs on everyone present not as much as a precaution than to satisfy their draconic ego from the spectacle, often making it look like they're attacking one only to switch to another and deeply enjoying the moment the relief person feels when they see they're not the target turns into horror when they see one of their allies got hurt instead, using their breath to control the flow of the fight as much as possible.

Once you know who are the combatants, I feel like getting in their shoes and picking the tactics and methods they'd use in the given situation is much easier.


3) Ephemeral tactics: While creatures will use the techniques they know work the best in a situation to accomplish what they want, and the smarter ones will even develop new ones to tailor their action to the specific situation, let's not forget that combat is chaos, and unless they're literal automatons or under someone's control the NPCs don't actually follow a script to the letter. Even the coolest head falls to its minimum level of competency in a life-or-death situation, and few commanders have perfect control of their forces.

As a result, it is not a problem, and in fact is quite fitting most of the time, if complexe tactics devolve into simpler ones past the initial clash. Leaders will be busy trying to order their folks in reaction and anticipation of the events, but are hindered by uncertainty of what people do and the fog of war. Troopers will fall back on their tried-and-true methods. A wizard will sling their signature spell due to familiarity and habit even if another might be even better for the situation. Easily-provoked foes will get angry, clouding their judgement, while cooler temperaments might stop to reassess the situation, or prove to be indecisive and dithering when the chips are down. Those who value their lives and well-being above whichever stakes the fight have will flee. Etc.

In other words, it's not a bad thing if complexe tactics devolve. Unless if you want to demonstrates the unaffected tactical genius of the opponent.


Hope it's helpful.

[EggKookoo]

I have a magical piece of software in my head. With this program, I can define a number of NPCs. I can provide stats and features. I can give them goals and motivations. and I can create relationships and dependencies between them. For example, Tharg is lazy but tough, and stays with the gang because he's trying to impress Aja, who has some affection for him but is mostly in it for the killing.

With this program, I can deduct Aja's HP when damaged by a PC. This would then prompt Tharg to freak out and attack her attacker, despite being currently engaged with another PCs. The program tells me this is Tharg's reaction, so I can apply it at the table (assuming I don't have something more interesting to do with him). Of course, this is all stuff I've set up ahead of time. It's basically a dynamic NPC interaction flowchart.

I just wish I had that program...

[Kane0]

Sounds like adding a lot of unnecessary micromanagement. Here’s my recipe for tactical encounters:
1: Mixture of bruisers and support, like your shorthand roles (skirmisher, artillery, controller, buffer)
2: One interesting terrain or environmental hazard
3: A mid-fight complication that forces the PCs to shift priority (reinforcements, retreat, spring a trap, ring the alarm, start a ritual spell, etc)

Spellcasting can be simplified by picking 2-3 spells the casters have access to beforehand rather than a full list of 4+ options, and assuming they have enough juice to cast at their preferred spell levels for 3 rounds.

If you want to focus on faster fights you can also find or come up with some clustered combatant rules (or micro-mass combat or whatever you want to call it) as well as tweak damage output up and health down to make things faster while maintaining lethality

Edit: oh, and theres morale if you want that extra bit of depth and complexity. The opposition will attempt to retreat or surrender if you think they have no good enough reason to continue a losing fight.

[micahaphone]

I wrote this up a year ago giving a different DM advice on a similar topic
---

Sometimes the enemies aren't just there to kill the party. Give them unique goals, or differing attitudes. Maybe the enemy shaman is cowardly while his troops are bloodthirsty.

Maybe they are attacking a shrine or altar and if it takes too much damage, the temple becomes desecrated and will no longer help the village in repelling vampires. Some enemies engage the party while others beeline for the altar. Do you save your wizard from the bruiser coming for him or do you stop that other guy from reaching the stone table?

Or the party is travelling with wealth/ escorting a trader. Some bandits are being distracting with traps and crossbow bolts from the bushes. While they grab attention, sneaky thieves are picking through the caravan. They will run away with whatever they've grabbed once spotted.


It really makes the world feel more alive, to know that these monsters existed before the heroes walked into town. And if your party ever decides to skip or avoid a quest, you can later have a barkeep or town crier talk about what happened ($Village falls to vampires, read all about it! ).

And then if they are stirred to action, you got yourself a sidequest and goal (reconsecrate the altar), that's only mildly different from your initial quest. Maybe this time you need to protect a priest of that temple's faith as they ritually cast, or a cleric hands off a spell stone containing a Sanctuary spell that takes time to activate.

[Asisreo1]

Complex tactics, those that play to the NPC's strengths, make the NPC feel it's challenge rating. I've had no problem threatening the party in even hard encounters when I play to a monster's strength.

It isn't until my tactics get sloppy that the fight seems easier than advertised, which is fine from time to time.

Here's some quick things to keep in mind:

Go prone against ranged PC's until a melee PC gets within range. It costs nothing and all attack rolls suddenly have disadvantage. If the NPC doesn't have a ranged option within range, they use their action to dash.

Use every feature in their statblock in a fight. All of them. You may not get the opportunity to use the creature again and the creature was designed to have their features used anyways. You paid for the whole statblock so you better use the whole statblock.

Go for the healer. The yo-yo effect only exists if there's a healer on the field. Down them first. After the fight, they'll probably need 1d4 hours to become conscious again and the party will want to rest.

Be relentless. Stop attacking the beefy character when the scrawny one is about to fall. Collapse them and the party's in a panic.

Use diverse and interesting combos of monsters and environments. Nothing screams interesting like a couple of boggles with an enslaved unicorn near the entrance of a feywild portal. It doesn't have to be bruiser, striker, cannon for all combats. Having a ton of cannons or strikers makes things interesting and using monsters with high synergy can throw the party for a huge loop.

[Segev]

For running spells and special abilities that take setup, I suggest having a strategy for the fight planned out.

For example, if a party is going to face a flesh golem in a long, narrow hallway, this is a bad situation for the flesh golem. But if there's somebody behind the flesh golem with the ability to cast lightning bolt, you want to plan the fight to use that when the golem has taken a bit of damage. Depending on how many uses of lightning bolt are available, you want to ration them, but also make sure that you plan this specifically for the fight down the hall.

I find that what really makes or breaks a fight's challenge is as much the terrain and how well it serves the monsters or the PCs. The deadliest fight my players found themselves in was one in a dungeon with fire newts, giant striders, and lots of lava. The fire newts were able to make good use of small rooms and narrow bridges, as well as their mounts' fire-absorption and periodic breath attacks, to really harry the PCs and stay in the fight.

Knowing what order the spellcasters plan to use their spells, or having an idea of what terrain will trigger what spell uses, will help you immensely.

[greenstone]

I think there are three things you need to add. Terrain, Terrain, Terrain.

Bonfires, ruins, broken walls, oil patches, caltrops, pits, dark areas and light areas, furniture, buckets, anything. Even if you don't use it, it will still make the combat appear more dynamic.

And more varied attackers. Don't just have six goblins, Have two goblin archers playing popup behind total cover (so the party has to use Ready), two goblin bruisers getting in the face of the characters, and two wolves who skulk around the edges trying to drag prone characters off to some horrible fate (probably involving nasty gnashing teeth).

[MaxWilson]

I love Star Spawns because of all the combo potential.

Grues are meat shields, they make every other star spawn type tougher and harder-hitting (by imposing disadvantage on attacks against non-grues, and granting other star spawns advantage on followup attacks of their own attacks if the target fails a save).

Manglers combo with other Star Spawns that grant advantage, which is... all of them. Whether it's a Hulk stunning a target, or a Grue biting the target, or a Star Spawn Larval Mage restraining the target, in all cases every Mangler in the vicinity can and should pop out of hiding and move up to 80' to the target before ripping ~90 HP off it like a Great White devouring a swimmer, and then spending any remaining movement moving back toward whatever shadows exist.

Hulks also combo well with Seers, who can target the Hulks in order to turn Psychic Comets into Psychic Comet AoEs.

And of course Larval Mages Dominate PCs to turn them against their allies, and restrain them and inflict AoE damage.

Star Spawns a great candidate monster type for not showing your whole hand all at once. Maybe you've got dozens of Grues, a handful of Manglers, two Hulks, and a Larval mage in your hand... so you initially show a hand-dozen Grues, then more Grues, then suddenly three Manglers step out of the shadows and tear a PC to shreds before darking back into the darkness where the Hulks are waiting, and the party wizard is making good progress on containing the Manglers and Hulks with a Wall of Force when suddenly the party Barbarian suddenly cuts the wizard almost in half, because he has been dominated by a Larval Mage. The point is, that encounter is a lot more tense if you're willing to sacrifice Grues for a few rounds by doing nothing with the Hulks and Manglers and Larval Mages (just Dodge or Hide or both), instead of showing your whole hand on round 1 of combat.

Of course you have to basically ignore DMG encounter budgets in order to do that, otherwise what I've just described is technically a triple-Deadly fight for a 20th level party--a whole 20th level adventuring day XP budget in one glorious fight.