When is it OK to ignore PCs in combat?

[Zuras]

Saw an online argument elsewhere that I thought was interesting. Someone was arguing that Barbarians without Great Weapon Master are basically useless, as they don’t do enough damage for the DM to target them, making your rage resistance a wasted feature.

This seems like bad DMing to me, but how do others feel about it, and have you run into the issue of being completely ignored as a martial PC with strong defenses? Obviously there’s a range of behavior depending on intelligence and how obvious the party spellcasters are (invoker in a pointy hat vs. war cleric in full plate) but ignoring a sword & board barbarian hitting you with a longsword for 20-30 damage per turn, especially if you can *see* your hits are landing on them seems like metagaming by the DM.

Sure, sometimes melee combatants will rush past you to get to the Wizard in the back, but if they have to dash and eat an opportunity attack to do it, they’re not going to do it 100% of the time, and they’re certainly not going to focus fire on the guy in plate mail over the guy wearing no armor at all thinking “that GWM Battlemaster has higher DPR and fewer HP, get ‘em!”

Am I an outlier on this? Obviously if you play it like a minis skirmish game Barbarians are weak and every party should be some mix of Shepherd Druids and Sharpshooter Battle Masters or Samurai, but even when the monsters know what they’re doing, they don’t know *that*.

[Quietus]

I think it'll be dependent on the expect level of optimization at your table. I'd say the vast majority of tables don't ignore the barbarian - you really only do that if you're trying very hard to kill a character. In a higher-optimization game you might get enemies aiming to do exactly this, but in turn, you expect that barbarian to have something that allows them to interfere with their opponents' ability to do this. Sentinel being high up on that list.

[Kol Korran]

When?
When the monster/ NPC has an in-world reason to do so... This depends on the opponents, situation, goals, understanding/ perceiving the PCs abilities and more. But if the DM thinks, that the NPC/ monster/ opponent thinks, based on in-world reasons, that ignoring the sword and board barbarian is best, then sure. If not, then not.

Making decisions based on the character's in-world decision making process in what defines roleplaying.

Now, remember that game mechanics are reflected back to fiction, (So the NPC/Opponent won't use game terms as you described, but they may think "That unarmored guy in the back can probably cast devastating magic, but magic users are squishy! Better take them down first!" Or even "that warrior uses a shield, and doesn't use a big weapon. So he's harder to hit, and pose less of a threat probably.") Or... They might think differently. In most games, differently opponents fight differently, depending on lots of factors, including their emotions, experience, and more...

In short- Roleplay it, don't just game it. And telegraph it to the players. Makes for a more interesting, believable, and immersive game.

[PhantomSoul]

It often makes sense to ignore the comput--

But really, whenever it makes sense.

A smart foe might focus on the spellcasters if they're causing the most problems.
A frustrated foe might focus on the squishier-looking targets if they're having trouble hitting.*
A hungry/hunter foe might focus on the squishier-looking targets if they just want an easier meal.

It's not even metagaming at that point; it's roleplaying. (That's not to say avoiding the tanks is never metagaming, of course!)

___
* I say hitting especially here -- you might get frustrated with not hitting at all (e.g. Bladesinger with Shield and Blur) before you would give up on someone who's tanking your hits (e.g. the Barbarian). The Bladesinger is also likely to be easier to flee from (less harmful opportunity attack is a reasonable expectation if they've been dealing less damage).

[da newt]

I think Kol nailed it.

If there is a reasonable in game logic for the opponent to selectively target the most vulnerable or most dangerous, then they should - but if the DM is metagaming that the opponent magically knows that that guy with a staff and shield is a barbarian, so his rage will limit my damage to 1/2, so I'll go attack that other guy with a staff and shield because he's just a druid and I want to break his concentration, then all roleplaying is out the window and this combat is PCs vs DM.

The vast majority of 'bad guys' should deal with the warrior attacking them whether the PC is a Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian in pretty much the same way. Of course 'dealing with them' could be standing toe to toe, or disengaging and fleeing ...

[Dienekes]

I mostly agree with Kol Korran here.

It depends entirely on the situation and what knowledge the enemy has, and how they are expected to behave. And importantly how the players expect things to behave. But this can get shifted in the direction the DM wants with proper foreshadowing and lore drops.

Just to use examples from my own games.

My Orcs are usually interested in proving their prowess and strength in a fight. They will hack away at the Barbarian because that’s how you prove you are the biggest and strongest. And are somewhat disdainful of those that use magic.

My Hobgoblins have no interest in anything like that. And with a veteran unit they will know that ignoring the guy whose mouth is foaming up will make the fight easier. And they will take every opportunity to efficiently and decisively end the encounter in their favor.

My players know this, now. And will plan accordingly.

And you can go through most the game with this method. For the most part.

I’d say it also does involve what you and the players are interested in. If it’s just about making your players feel like heroes. Then yeah have no one ignore the Barbarian. That’s a fun way to play the game.

If the game is about a hard win struggle to survive where the players are expected to do everything in their power just to survive. I’d say the Barbarian is possibly not playing optimally and dying or getting ignored is the proper reaction to that. That’s also a fun way to play.

It’s a game. If we’re all having fun it’s not wrong. But what may be fun for one group may not be fun for another.

[Frogreaver]

Saw an online argument elsewhere that I thought was interesting. Someone was arguing that Barbarians without Great Weapon Master are basically useless, as they don’t do enough damage for the DM to target them, making your rage resistance a wasted feature.

This seems like bad DMing to me, but how do others feel about it, and have you run into the issue of being completely ignored as a martial PC with strong defenses? Obviously there’s a range of behavior depending on intelligence and how obvious the party spellcasters are (invoker in a pointy hat vs. war cleric in full plate) but ignoring a sword & board barbarian hitting you with a longsword for 20-30 damage per turn, especially if you can *see* your hits are landing on them seems like metagaming by the DM.

Sure, sometimes melee combatants will rush past you to get to the Wizard in the back, but if they have to dash and eat an opportunity attack to do it, they’re not going to do it 100% of the time, and they’re certainly not going to focus fire on the guy in plate mail over the guy wearing no armor at all thinking “that GWM Battlemaster has higher DPR and fewer HP, get ‘em!”

Am I an outlier on this? Obviously if you play it like a minis skirmish game Barbarians are weak and every party should be some mix of Shepherd Druids and Sharpshooter Battle Masters or Samurai, but even when the monsters know what they’re doing, they don’t know *that*.

This is my typical NPC decision tree when it comes to combat.

1. Who can I attack after moving (wasted actions suck)?
2. Do I have enough info about the PCs to know if any of those are priority targets?
3. Are there any priority targets out of my move and attack range that I could dash and get into their faces?

*Priority targets may be those that seem to be doing alot of damage or are known to be capable of casting devasting spells OR concentrating on such spells.

I don't have NPCs base decisions off PC attire or even caster gear (exception being armor type and shield denoting good AC but not that those without better armor/shields necessarily have worse AC). NPCs simply have no way of knowing what level each PC is. They typically don't have enough info to know they are all usually similarly 'leveled' (powerful). So they don't act like they do.

**Exceptions if the NPCs have engaged those PCs before or have carefully studied them before engaging, etc.

[Bundin]

For me, it's roleplaying decision making as well: smarter enemies make smarter choices, as do more experienced enemies. Beasts tend to go for whatever is closest or whoever in range hit them last, that veteran bandit ambush will have archers aiming for squishies, including readying their action to try and deal with in-out-in-cover casters after a few rounds. Smart enemies scout and then research, so they'll know who they're up against mid-campaign.

Furthermore, intelligent enemies play more tactically as character levels rise, especially when they're part of a larger organisation. That group of 5 level 5 adventurers is definitely a known quantity in a decently sized region after completing a major questline. And when they reach level 10, they'll be well known in a much larger area. That means that even during encounter 1, certain enemies will know who's who, adjusting their tactics (and their taunts!) accordingly.

[Tanarii]

Beasts tend to go for whatever is closest or whoever in range hit them last,
I prefer beasts that try take down an enemy and drag the body off to eat it later.

Some monsters too. Some humanoids for that matter.

[ad_hoc]

If the PCs fought in a similar battle what would they do?

And if they didn't attack the enemy NPCs/creatures with high defense and went for the weaker ones first would the DM tell them that it isn't fair to do so?

[Frogreaver]

If the PCs fought in a similar battle what would they do?

And if they didn't attack the enemy NPCs/creatures with high defense and went for the weaker ones first would the DM tell them that it isn't fair to do so?

There is no symmetry between the PC's and NPC's.

[JNAProductions]

There is no symmetry between the PC's and NPC's.

That's not true. There doesn't HAVE to be, but there often is.

And in this case, symmetry (assuming the NPCs are of a similar caliber as the PCs) should be expected. I wouldn't expect a mindless, undirected zombie to act in a particularly smart manner, but a 20 Int enemy wizard should damn well be acting smart. Which is not to say PERFECTLY-perhaps the wizard has an arcane superiority complex, and so will target an enemy wizard or sorcerer in preference of a perhaps more dangerous non-caster or divine caster. But, barring exploitable flaws like that, they should act pretty damn intelligently on the info they have.

[Amnestic]

There is no symmetry between the PC's and NPC's.

Mechanically, no, but if they're fighting intelligent opponents (be they humanoid or otherwise) then that symmetry of target prioritisation isn't unreasonable.

[Kuulvheysoon]

There is no symmetry between the PC's and NPC's.

I mean, I wouldn't necessarily say that. PCs tend to fight smart, so why wouldn't NPCs? If they're facing off against a pack of wolves, yeah, there's no reason to have them react as PCs might, but if they're fighting a coterie of mind flayers and umber hulks, you can bet they they're going to adopt smart tactics AKA PC tactics.

[JNAProductions]

I mean, I wouldn't necessarily say that. PCs tend to fight smart, so why wouldn't NPCs? If they're facing off against a pack of wolves, yeah, there's no reason to have them react as PCs might, but if they're fighting a coterie of mind flayers and umber hulks, you can bet they they're going to adopt smart tactics AKA PC tactics.

To the bolded bit... I wouldn't say PC tactics are smart tactics. We all know what players are like. :P

[Frogreaver]

That's not true. There doesn't HAVE to be, but there often is.

That you agree that symmetry isn't necessary essentially demonstrates my point.


And in this case, symmetry (assuming the NPCs are of a similar caliber as the PCs) should be expected. I wouldn't expect a mindless, undirected zombie to act in a particularly smart manner, but a 20 Int enemy wizard should damn well be acting smart. Which is not to say PERFECTLY-perhaps the wizard has an arcane superiority complex, and so will target an enemy wizard or sorcerer in preference of a perhaps more dangerous non-caster or divine caster. But, barring exploitable flaws like that, they should act pretty damn intelligently on the info they have.

And here's where we go off the rails. You are arguing against a position I don't take.


Mechanically, no, but if they're fighting intelligent opponents (be they humanoid or otherwise) then that symmetry of target prioritisation isn't unreasonable.

If they aren't the same mechanically, why would intelligent target prioritization be similar?

[Zuras]

If the PCs fought in a similar battle what would they do?

And if they didn't attack the enemy NPCs/creatures with high defense and went for the weaker ones first would the DM tell them that it isn't fair to do so?

What the players would do is irrelevant. If the DMs tactics don’t work, or turn out to be boring to play, the DM has complete freedom to build the next encounter more to their liking. If the DM starts using tactics that make a PC irrelevant, they often have no recourse (especially martials, who can’t radically change their capabilities simply by using their slots to cast different spells). The sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander argument breaks down because the situations aren’t symmetrical.

[JNAProductions]

Then articulate your position better, Frogreaver.

[Amnestic]

If they aren't the same mechanically, why would intelligent target prioritization be similar?

Because whether you're a CR3 Knight or a Fighter 3 in plate armour you're still "fighter guy with high AC and health"
Whether you're a CR14 Archmage or a Wizard 15 with spells out the wazoo you're still a spellcaster.

NPCs not (always) having class levels doesn't change the logic of the world. If PCs can recognise the logic of "target the spellcasters first" then so can NPCs.

[PhantomSoul]

NPCs not (always) having class levels doesn't change the logic of the world. If PCs can recognise the logic of "target the spellcasters first" then so can NPCs.

Could even make it more true! (If the PCs have more "passive" resistance to spellcasters, then PC spellcasters are more of a threat than PCs even perceive them to be. That could be extra true in a setting where knowledge of spell options isn't widespread, so rumours and tales are the main sources of info)

[Frogreaver]

Then articulate your position better, Frogreaver.

I did. I don't know how to more clearly or concisely say that NPCs and PCs aren't symmetrical. That you try to attach a bunch of baggage to that position that I don't agree with is on you and not on me.


Because whether you're a CR3 Knight or a Fighter 3 in plate armour you're still "fighter guy with high AC and health"
Whether you're a CR14 Archmage or a Wizard 15 with spells out the wazoo you're still a spellcaster.

NPCs not (always) having class levels doesn't change the logic of the world. If PCs can recognise the logic of "target the spellcasters first" then so can NPCs.

So you posit that PCs should target the equivalent of a level 1 caster over the equivalent of a level 5 Fighter?

[Kuulvheysoon]

To the bolded bit... I wouldn't say PC tactics are smart tactics. We all know what players are like. :P

...okay, you've got me there. PCs theoretically use smart tactics, so it makes sense that similarly intelligent opponents would at least try to do the same. They should absolutely be susceptible to the same kind of foibles as PCs, though, if you (as the DM) can manage it.

One of my more memorable villains was a sexist knight who refused to strike a woman. Even after the female monk battered him pretty good, it took another few encounters (where he sent the mooks after her) before he attacked her directly. Funny enough, it was the beginning of his villainous breakdown before he essentially said "screw honor" and sold his soul to a devil.

[Amnestic]

So you posit that PCs should target the equivalent of a level 1 caster over the equivalent of a level 5 Fighter?

In certain circumstances...yeah? A squishy low health caster who's got Bless running, throws out a Command: Grovel and then cantrip damage every turn is probably a better target than the comparatively high health high AC guy who does two attacks at 1d8+4 every round.

[qube]

What confuses me is why attacking a GWM barbarian would be a better Idea. (GWM isn't that much of a power boost compared to die example +2 str)

No, this indeed seems to be poor DMing.
It would imply any non-sticky tank is "useless" ( subpar? Perhaps. Useless? Heck no)

[Tanarii]

...okay, you've got me there. PCs theoretically use smart tactics, so it makes sense that similarly intelligent opponents would at least try to do the same. They should absolutely be susceptible to the same kind of foibles as PCs, though, if you (as the DM) can manage it.
I think it's fair to say players are just are prone to make decisions for their PC as a character piece primarily based on game knowledge available to them as a DM is likely to for their monsters. As opposed to doing it for in character reasons. Especially in combat.


What confuses me is why attacking a GWM barbarian would be a better Idea. (GWM isn't that much of a power boost compared to die example +2 str)Because you don't want to provoke an AO to get away from them to attack a different target. That's less of a concern for a non-GWM 2H Barb, and even more less for a 1H weapon or dual wielding finesse one.

[Unoriginal]

It would imply any non-sticky tank is "useless" ( subpar? Perhaps. Useless? Heck no)

Many hold that view, and don't stick to only implying it.

[JNAProductions]

I did. I don't know how to more clearly or concisely say that NPCs and PCs aren't symmetrical. That you try to attach a bunch of baggage to that position that I don't agree with is on you and not on me.

I assumed you were making a statement relevant to the thread, and not just a random statement totally unrelated to what’s being talked about.

[Frogreaver]

What confuses me is why attacking a GWM barbarian would be a better Idea. (GWM isn't that much of a power boost compared to die example +2 str)

IMO the true power of an early GWM is when you factor in that you will be getting a bonus action attack off both kills and crits. You don't even need the -5/+10 so much till you max your str and get your proficiency bonus up. (Keeping in mind you can pick up GWM from race and still get the +2 str).


I assumed you were making a statement relevant to the thread, and not just a random statement totally unrelated to what’s being talked about.

I did make a statement relevant to the thread. More importantly though... Why you trying to pick a fight with me?

[ad_hoc]

What the players would do is irrelevant. If the DMs tactics don’t work, or turn out to be boring to play, the DM has complete freedom to build the next encounter more to their liking. If the DM starts using tactics that make a PC irrelevant, they often have no recourse (especially martials, who can’t radically change their capabilities simply by using their slots to cast different spells). The sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander argument breaks down because the situations aren’t symmetrical.

The player should not have hyper focused their 'build' to where they are irrelevant a lot of the time.

'Optimizers' often think the most powerful character is one where the numbers are highest without paying attention to the character's ability to be helpful in a wide variety of situations (which is what happens in D&D).

Then when their 'optimized' character doesn't do well they blame the DM for it rather than admit to themselves that they didn't actually do a good job at optimizing even though the have the highest number.

[Catullus64]

When it comes down to enemies doing threat analysis on the PCs, I don't know that I would weigh most of the factors that actually contribute to damage output.

I often to ask my players to have their characters act as though a single goblin's spear-thrust could kill them. HP exists as a narrative cushion between this assumption and the actual play experience; when HP are depleted, that's a sign to actually describe a deadly wound.

I try to have the enemies behave in a similarly realistic manner: even if I am aware that the Great Weapon Master poses more of a threat than the sword-and-boarder, to the enemy they're both foes closing in with deadly weapons, and will both be treated as such.

[Frogreaver]

The player should not have hyper focused their 'build' to where they are irrelevant a lot of the time.

'Optimizers' often think the most powerful character is one where the numbers are highest without paying attention to the character's ability to be helpful in a wide variety of situations (which is what happens in D&D).

Then when their 'optimized' character doesn't do well they blame the DM for it rather than admit to themselves that they didn't actually do a good job at optimizing even though the have the highest number.

Do you believe the DM can create unfair encounters? That he can run monsters unfairly? That it's not okay for the DM to metagame against the PC's?

If so then shouldn't the blame often rest on the DM's shoulders instead of the 'self-deceived and crybaby' optimizers?


In certain circumstances...yeah? A squishy low health caster who's got Bless running, throws out a Command: Grovel and then cantrip damage every turn is probably a better target than the comparatively high health high AC guy who does two attacks at 1d8+4 every round.

I love how you went to great effect to diminish a typical martials damage1d8+4 instead of 1d8+6 or 2d6+4, and to pick the caster type with the best options available for this scenario. That said I still don't see anything the Cleric is doing that would make anyone believe he's a more important target.

[Zuras]

The player should not have hyper focused their 'build' to where they are irrelevant a lot of the time.

'Optimizers' often think the most powerful character is one where the numbers are highest without paying attention to the character's ability to be helpful in a wide variety of situations (which is what happens in D&D).

Then when their 'optimized' character doesn't do well they blame the DM for it rather than admit to themselves that they didn't actually do a good job at optimizing even though the have the highest number.

The example I gave was literally a non-optimized Sword & Board barbarian being ignored because their numbers aren’t big enough, which is exactly the opposite of what you’re describing. Paladins and GWM builds have issues against flying foes, but it’s not because of over specialization.



In certain circumstances...yeah? A squishy low health caster who's got Bless running, throws out a Command: Grovel and then cantrip damage every turn is probably a better target than the comparatively high health high AC guy who does two attacks at 1d8+4 every round.

If they’re both wearing armor, how do you know who’s squishy? How do you know their HP, or that they’re concentrating on a spell? Spirit Guardians and Fireball are pretty obvious as to their source, but is bless?

[stoutstien]

As a player your best bet is to have something that is thematically and mechanically hard to ignore. One step past that is to reduce the enemy's options to the point where they are forced to attack the best Target from the party's perspective if they can actively engage in offense at all. If you can be ignored you better have some punishment/mitigation ready to heap on them for even attempting it.

From my experience a barbarian is actually a larger threat when they focus on good positioning and movement restriction than swinging away with GWM. I'd probably go as far as the vote shield master as one of the best combat focused feat investments to class can make.

[Amnestic]

I love how you went to great effect to diminish a typical martials damage1d8+4 instead of 1d8+6 or 2d6+4, and to pick the caster type with the best options available for this scenario. That said I still don't see anything the Cleric is doing that would make anyone believe he's a more important target.

You can have 1d8+6 if you want, maybe the Fighter went Dueling instead of Defense, sure. It's...kind getting off the point though: that threat assessments for intelligent NPCs either can or will operate on the same vein as a PC, and that the asymmetric way in which NPCs vs. PCs are mechanically built doesn't change that.

[CheddarChampion]

I think this kind of thing depends on DMing style and the group atmosphere.

If you're DMing for casual players then throw them a bone: don't ignore the Barbarian, don't focus fire until one PC goes down, don't immediately attack a downed PC, etc.

If you're DMing for D&D veterans who want to be challenged and who find easy combats a waste of time... then it's okay to pull out the mean/killer tactics.

[Carlobrand]

When?
When the monster/ NPC has an in-world reason to do so...

This. ^^^^^ Best answer out there.

If you're not putting yourself in your monsters' minds as a DM, you're not roleplaying. A well-organized team of adversaries led by an intelligent strategist will optimize strategy to take out the biggest threats first, and the biggest threat is likely to be the mage, not the barbarian. A chaotic poorly disciplined team of antagonists won't give a copper about strategy - get in there and win glory for Gruumsh; if experience has taught them that the ones in robes are dangerous, they might lead with a javelin flurry in that direction, but no one ever won glory by chopping down weaklings while ignoring the big fierce opponent. A semi-intelligent monster is likely to start out looking for whatever looks like the tastiest morsel and then quickly switch to going after that mean hollering creature with the big cutty thing because that cutty thing hurts and it's not immediately obvious to its semi-intelligent brain that the squishy thing in robes who is busily casting haste on his teammates is a bigger threat than the angry guy with the big cutty-thing.

[Unoriginal]

Saw an online argument elsewhere that I thought was interesting. Someone was arguing that Barbarians without Great Weapon Master are basically useless, as they don’t do enough damage for the DM to target them, making your rage resistance a wasted feature.

Let's say that the enemy does ignore the Barbarian, despite the Barbarian being able to do damage to them. Best case scenario for the enemy being attacked is:

- Defeat all of the Barbarian's allies in N rounds.

- Have HPs higher than (N(damage output of the Barbarian))+(N(damage output of the rest of the party))

- Manage to then defeat the Barbarian with HPs-(N*(damage output of the Barbarian))+(N(damage output of the rest of the party))


Needless to say, that is not a best case scenario that is likely to happen unless the PCs are utterly outmatched from the get go

Furthermore, that is not the way any creature who care about their survival acts. It's entirely possible to meet creatures who don't care about their own survival, of course. To give a few examples, desperation for victory, hatred, selfless devotion to their goals, the knowledge they'll be fine even if killed here, lack of mental faculties, or being controlled by a separate entity which doesn't care about them may result in hostile NPCs allowing themselves to be torn to shred in order to take out one PC over the others.

But if all NPCs regardless of their natures, needs and contexts ignore the Barbarian in order kill squishier opponents, then the DM is just playing them like tactially-programmed automatons with a fancy paintjob.

Same reason as why it makes no sense for many NPCs to try and fight to the death as long as an escape route is open, yet so many DMs treat them like kill-obsessed AIs.

[Cheesegear]

This seems like bad DMing to me, but how do others feel about it, and have you run into the issue of being completely ignored as a martial PC with strong defenses?

It depends on the action economy and the tactics and roleplaying that the DM makes their hostiles do, and of course it depends on the environment (e.g; a Bottleneck).

If you have a single hostile, who can only make two attacks per round...They're likely going to attack the biggest threat on the table - not the Barbarian.
If you have half a dozen Tribal Warriors and/or Thugs riding Dire Wolves, that encounter is going to be a little different. Almost everyone in the party is likely to get attacked at least once, with Advantage.

As posted earlier in the thread; Bugbears, Orcs, Goblins and Hobgoblins, despite being very similar in their narrative purpose, have very distinct tactics when it comes to a combat. Will the Barbarian get attacked? Maybe. Maybe not.

Unfortunately, the cop out argument is actually the most logical; It depends.

[da newt]

As DM it's easy to allow metagaing to creep into your thinking - you know most everything about all the Players and their PCs, you control the actions of ALL of the 'bad guys' which make coordination SOOO much more effective than 6 Players each doing their own thing (especially if you are the kind of DM who discourages 'table talk'), and you make all the rulings and set all the skill DCs etc ...

"absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a great quote because it's so often true. It's important for a DM to remember to roleplay honestly / fairly. A pack of wolves SHOULD act in a loosely coordinated fashion to kill and eat the most vulnerable prey and avoid combat that they cannot win easily because this is what wolves do - anything else is bad for the wolves survival. Bandits don't attack unless they think they will win with minimal losses. A mother bear will go midieval on anything that threatens her cubs. A hobgoblin warlord will have a tactical plan. etc

[Frogreaver]

As DM it's easy to allow metagaing to creep into your thinking - you know most everything about all the Players and their PCs, you control the actions of ALL of the 'bad guys' which make coordination SOOO much more effective than 6 Players each doing their own thing (especially if you are the kind of DM who discourages 'table talk'), and you make all the rulings and set all the skill DCs etc ...

"absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a great quote because it's so often true. It's important for a DM to remember to roleplay honestly / fairly. A pack of wolves SHOULD act in a loosely coordinated fashion to kill and eat the most vulnerable prey and avoid combat that they cannot win easily because this is what wolves do - anything else is bad for the wolves survival. Bandits don't attack unless they think they will win with minimal losses. A mother bear will go midieval on anything that threatens her cubs. A hobgoblin warlord will have a tactical plan. etc

IMO. Tactics and Intelligent decisions are only as good as the information NPC's have about the PC's.

Which is to say that no plan is going to be very tactically sound if the NPC's just happen to meet the PC's even when it's otherwise intelligent NPC's. As time progresses or the faction that's opposing the PC's gains more intel on them, they may have enough information to make sound tactical plans against the PC's.

But at least in my games (and likely many others) repeated encounters (with survivors and/or onlookers) with the same faction don't come up all that much.

[Pex]

In another perspective, what a DM should try to avoid taking a player out of the combat. A player failing to save against Hold Person and keeps failing sucks, but that's the game and ok. The bad guy casting Wall of Stone in the corridor blocking a PC from the combat area causing the player to spend 3 or 4 rounds finding another way in, if one exists at all, is not ok despite the logic and sound tactic of it. I won't say a DM should never do this. When it's the intelligent BBEG of the Adventure Arc or Campaign where everyone, Bad Guys and Players, are supposed to Nova have at it. It is the challenge the players need to overcome. A You Are The Suck effect should only last at most two rounds or at least cost an Action, the victim or another PC, to remove. It is not fun for a player to sit there doing nothing for a real world hour while everyone else gets to play the combat. At the very least let the player play one of the bad guys of the combat.

[ad_hoc]

In another perspective, what a DM should try to avoid taking a player out of the combat. A player failing to save against Hold Person and keeps failing sucks, but that's the game and ok. The bad guy casting Wall of Stone in the corridor blocking a PC from the combat area causing the player to spend 3 or 4 rounds finding another way in, if one exists at all, is not ok despite the logic and sound tactic of it. I won't say a DM should never do this. When it's the intelligent BBEG of the Adventure Arc or Campaign where everyone, Bad Guys and Players, are supposed to Nova have at it. It is the challenge the players need to overcome. A You Are The Suck effect should only last at most two rounds or at least cost an Action, the victim or another PC, to remove. It is not fun for a player to sit there doing nothing for a real world hour while everyone else gets to play the combat. At the very least let the player play one of the bad guys of the combat.

Or, have faster combats.

[DwarfFighter]

The mindset the OP mentions, that a character class is useless without a specific feat, is worrisome to me. Feats are OPTIONAL, after all. Is a Barbarian still "useless" if the other characters in the party don't have Sharpshooter or Warcaster? If so, there is a problem.

[Pex]

Or, have faster combats.

When you're sitting there doing nothing while everyone else get to play, 15 minutes can feel like an hour. My point stands. Don't shut players out of the combat.

[ad_hoc]

When you're sitting there doing nothing while everyone else get to play, 15 minutes can feel like an hour. My point stands. Don't shut players out of the combat.

Not at our table.

That sort of thing will only ratchet up the tension which makes the time fly by.

If it is happening often then yeah that might get tiresome. Sometimes though? It can make for memorable and dramatic moments.

[Temperjoke]

*contemplates a wizard who likes to go shirtless with a buff, toned body (believing in "healthy body, healthy mind") and a barbarian who likes spellcaster robes cause they're roomy and comfortable*

[Frogreaver]

It's...kind getting off the point though: that threat assessments for intelligent NPCs either can or will operate on the same vein as a PC, and that the asymmetric way in which NPCs vs. PCs are mechanically built doesn't change that.

Do you really believe that 'intelligent' target prioritization is actually independent of the NPC/PC capabilities that are doing the prioritization?

Because to believe that NPC mechanics don't change target prioritization, that appears to be what one has to believe.

[Reach Weapon]

If you're DMing for casual players then throw them a bone: don't ignore the Barbarian, don't focus fire until one PC goes down, don't immediately attack a downed PC, etc.
I'd argue that it's better to turn other dials (lower the CR, raise the XP, give more non-combat XP) than it is to have opponents take a dive for new players. That said, established groups that value heroic poses over combat, should face foes that end up in cinematic piles.

[Hytheter]

Or, have faster combats.

Aha, of course! Just... have faster combats! Why didn't I think of that sooner?

9_9

[Glorthindel]

For me it depends on whether it makes sense 'in universe' or whether the decision has been made for meta reasons.

For example, i have been playing Solasta recently (PC game using the 5th ed srd), and one thing that has bugged me the last couple of days is the game clearly priority targets based on hit probability. For example, my Fighter and Cleric have identical 'on paper' AC (even though the Fighter is using a Two-Hander, and the Cleric is sword-and-board), but the Fighter has a magic cloak that imposes Disadvantage on attacks, so she is much more tanky. Because of this the monsters do their upmost to bypass the Fighter to attack the Cleric, despite the difference being invisible, and a reasonable roleplayed response would be to expect the Fighter to be the easier target due to their weapon choices.

Now, I don't blame a computer for doing this, but I absolutely would consider it bull**** if a DM pulled the same trick.

[ad_hoc]

Aha, of course! Just... have faster combats! Why didn't I think of that sooner?

9_9

Actually though. If you're finding your combats are taking over an hour then take a look at why that is.

[ad_hoc]

For me it depends on whether it makes sense 'in universe' or whether the decision has been made for meta reasons.

For example, i have been playing Solasta recently (PC game using the 5th ed srd), and one thing that has bugged me the last couple of days is the game clearly priority targets based on hit probability. For example, my Fighter and Cleric have identical 'on paper' AC (even though the Fighter is using a Two-Hander, and the Cleric is sword-and-board), but the Fighter has a magic cloak that imposes Disadvantage on attacks, so she is much more tanky. Because of this the monsters do their upmost to bypass the Fighter to attack the Cleric, despite the difference being invisible, and a reasonable roleplayed response would be to expect the Fighter to be the easier target due to their weapon choices.

Now, I don't blame a computer for doing this, but I absolutely would consider it bull**** if a DM pulled the same trick.

Is the difference 'invisible' though?

What is the cloak actually doing that imposes disadvantage? I would think that would be a noticeable thing.

[Asmotherion]

Well, it has to do with tactics and what NPCs would generally do.

Targeting the Wizard over the Fighter is the right choice for example, as a Mage can change the course of battle with one spell. A Humanoid could logically do that, a beast on the other hand would not know better.

[Amnestic]

Is the difference 'invisible' though?

What is the cloak actually doing that imposes disadvantage? I would think that would be a noticeable thing.

At a guess if it's a disadvantage-causing cloak, Cloak of Displacement? Which would have a visible effect, but arguably not one that would affect targeting decision making:


While you wear this cloak, it projects an illusion that makes you appear to be standing in a place near your actual location, causing any creature to have disadvantage on Attack rolls against you. If you take damage, the property ceases to function until the start of your next turn. This property is suppressed while you are Incapacitated, Restrained, or otherwise unable to move.

[Frogreaver]

Well, it has to do with tactics and what NPCs would generally do.

Targeting the Wizard over the Fighter is the right choice for example, as a Mage can change the course of battle with one spell. A Humanoid could logically do that, a beast on the other hand would not know better.

That's metagaming though. There's no reason for NPC's to assume the following things:

1. The mage is of high enough level to have an encounter altering spell
2. The mage actually has prepared/knows an encounter altering spell
3. The mage still has slots left to cast the higher level spell
4. Fighters can not be encounter altering as well (even provided the right feats/magic items/party)

If those things aren't assumed then there's no logical reason to rate the mage as a bigger threat - and that's quite a few assumptions being made on the part of the intelligent NPC.

[stoutstien]

That's metagaming though. There's no reason for NPC's to assume the following things:

1. The mage is of high enough level to have an encounter altering spell
2. The mage actually has prepared/knows an encounter altering spell
3. The mage still has slots left to cast the higher level spell
4. Fighters can not be encounter altering as well (even provided the right feats/magic items/party)

If those things aren't assumed then there's no logical reason to rate the mage as a bigger threat - and that's quite a few assumptions being made on the part of the intelligent NPC.

Any amount of information filtering from DM to NPCs is going to happen in the metagame so it's more important to have some form of framework. Rather than trying to decide what information they would have the DM would need to place it in the larger context of the game world with all the little loose ends that comes with it. You could have an NPC Target the wizard just because they're an elf and they don't like elves or they attack those attempting to stay the furthest away just because they assume there is a reason for that. Thematically there's an infinitude of combination of factors that could lead to the prioritizing of targeting party members so best bet is to not rely on that as the sole form of incentive.

[Frogreaver]

Any amount of information filtering from DM to NPCs is going to happen in the metagame so it's more important to have some form of framework. Rather than trying to decide what information they would have the DM would need to place it in the larger context of the game world with all the little loose ends that comes with it. You could have an NPC Target the wizard just because they're an elf and they don't like elves or they attack those attempting to stay the furthest away just because they assume there is a reason for that. Thematically there's an infinitude of combination of factors that could lead to the prioritizing of targeting party members so best bet is to not rely on that as the sole form of incentive.

Agreed, but the moment you start basing decisions on things like you describe here then there's also no longer a reason they are going to default to prioritizing the casters anymore.

[stoutstien]

Agreed, but the moment you start basing decisions on things like you describe here then there's also no longer a reason they are going to default to prioritizing the casters anymore.

For the most part I agree but it can happen. depending on table elements it can happen a lot.

For example campaign I'm running is heavy yuan ti focused and in this setting they are masters of espionage and playing the long game. They have no direct fear of those who can wield magic because a lot of them have some form of resistance to it but they see them as competition as potential influences over, from their perspective, lesser beings. They prefer bribery, blackmail, or other low risk/ high return tactics but of that fails they have specialized means to dealing with it.
In this particular scenario the party is mostly aware of this and if they happen to learn about this potential threat beforehand they can adjust accordingly but if they miss some vital clues or fail to adjust it would appear from an outside observation that I as the DM am unfairly isolating and targeting the wizard or in this case bard and fae touched (wild magic)barbarian.

I think it's really difficult to even talk about a single encounter let alone a single NPC in isolation and how they approach it because without the context it has nothing to frame it against.

[Frogreaver]

For the most part I agree but it can happen. depending on table elements it can happen a lot.

For example campaign I'm running is heavy yuan ti focused and in this setting they are masters of espionage and playing the long game. They have no direct fear of those who can wield magic because a lot of them have some form of resistance to it but they see them as competition as potential influences over, from their perspective, lesser beings. They prefer bribery, blackmail, or other low risk/ high return tactics but of that fails they have specialized means to dealing with it.
In this particular scenario the party is mostly aware of this and if they happen to learn about this potential threat beforehand they can adjust accordingly but if they miss some vital clues or fail to adjust it would appear from an outside observation that I as the DM am unfairly isolating and targeting the wizard or in this case bard and fae touched (wild magic)barbarian.

I think it's really difficult to even talk about a single encounter let alone a single NPC in isolation and how they approach it because without the context it has nothing to frame it against.

I'm not saying it cannot happen, just that prioritizing the caster isn't a generic default best tactic for intelligent NPC's (or even PC's).

A cultural mindset may prevail that has your yuan-ti usually focus on casters (which is perfectly fine) - but that such decisions are based on culture and inherent yuan-ti bias illustrates my point - that it's not a generic universal intelligent tactic to target casters - because other cultures and races could easily determine that it's 'usually' better to prioritize fighters in combat.

[Asmotherion]

That's metagaming though. There's no reason for NPC's to assume the following things:

1. The mage is of high enough level to have an encounter altering spell
2. The mage actually has prepared/knows an encounter altering spell
3. The mage still has slots left to cast the higher level spell
4. Fighters can not be encounter altering as well (even provided the right feats/magic items/party)

If those things aren't assumed then there's no logical reason to rate the mage as a bigger threat - and that's quite a few assumptions being made on the part of the intelligent NPC.

I'd argue that, in a world that magic is real, it follows a practical approach to things. It would be metagamy to assume the Wizard doesn't have any spell slots for example, but it would be the logical course of action to disable someone you have seen casting a spell.

[Frogreaver]

I'd argue that, in a world that magic is real, it follows a practical approach to things. It would be metagamy to assume the Wizard doesn't have any spell slots for example, but it would be the logical course of action to disable someone you have seen casting a spell.

You don't know if you caught the wizard after he'd cast all his spells or not. Or if you've caught him after he's already used the dangerous ones. You don't know what spells he knows or has prepared. You don't even know his level.

Why does it make logical sense to go after a wizard until he's actually cast something dangerous (or until you know he has that capability)? Seriously, can you explain the logic behind that?

[Kuulvheysoon]

I mean, fireball is an iconic spell. Even stupider foes will know of it. Heck, they might be more likely to attack a spellcaster just in case. If a caster can catch more than 2 foes in an AoE, it'll often deal more damage overall than the scariest of Fighter-types, especially with Bounded Accuracy.

A larger group of low CR creatures is still a threat far beyond what they've ever been since 2E. Sure, that Fighter might be able to kill every creature within 15 feet of them with their movement + Action Surge and a big ol' pointy stick.

But that wizard in the back? It opened the fight with a big blast of fire and roasted the entire back line. Who knows if they can do it again? And next time that the survivors run into anyone casting any spell, they'd have to assume that they could do the same.

You claim that they can't assume that a caster has a spell slot capable of casting it; I counter with the argument that that can't not assume that they the caster is packing serious heat.

Fighters can be dangerous, absolutely, but that's a danger that's understood. Take big metal stick, hit it hard. Most martial-type strategies are extensions of that. Casters have way more variety, and with the relative scarcity of magic in 5E, far spookier and more unknown. Stories might even be exaggerated to make all casters sound like they're capable of calling lightning from the sky on a whim. Look no further than the fantastic racism and superstition that humans are capable of IRL in regards to the fear of the unknown; now multiply that and you can see where I'm coming from.

[Tanarii]

Or, have faster combats.


When you're sitting there doing nothing while everyone else get to play, 15 minutes can feel like an hour. My point stands. Don't shut players out of the combat.


Aha, of course! Just... have faster combats! Why didn't I think of that sooner?

9_9


Actually though. If you're finding your combats are taking over an hour then take a look at why that is.
While I agree that an hour is ludicrously long for a combat, and absolutely is a problem to be looked at, I also agree with Pex that most / many players will get bored or irritated if taken out of combat entirely for 3 rounds. Which should be about 20 minutes tops for 4-5 players. I'd go so far as to say most / many players get bored or irritated if taken out of combat for one round, when rounds are up to 5 minute rounds. Missing your turn sucks with the slow combat inherent to TTRPGs, even when it's not ludicrously slow.

That doesn't make me an advocate of not using these effects extremely sparingly, unlike Pex. But the basis of their argument makes sense / matches my experience with most players.

[Gtdead]

DM should ignore less dangerous PCs whenever he feels like it. It's up to the players to make the most out of the steelclad slab of meat or whatever build that doesn't pose a danger to the enemy, metagame or not. I personally don't care about those "intelligence dependency" arguments and I think they are fundamentally wrong. Even simple beasts show a lot of intelligence when they hunt, more than some people think so to me it's perfectly fine for a wolf to go for the tender rogue in leather than trying to attack the shiny paladin. I also disagree with the notion where prioritizing targets due to game knowledge is strict metagaming. The game has mechanics that change things compared to real life examples. The only way to not be wrong is to apply setting knowledge, not real life reasoning. The majority of DMs do not know the setting's lore enough to instinctively understand what common sense would be like in setting and also, setting lore is usually lacking in this department or it's difficult to find/understand.

So as far as I am concerned, metagamey algorithmic behavior is perfectly valid and if your Barbarian has trouble killing even a fly, then the said fly should just ignore him and pester the wizard and the rogue instead.

[Asmotherion]

You don't know if you caught the wizard after he'd cast all his spells or not. Or if you've caught him after he's already used the dangerous ones. You don't know what spells he knows or has prepared. You don't even know his level.

Why does it make logical sense to go after a wizard until he's actually cast something dangerous (or until you know he has that capability)? Seriously, can you explain the logic behind that?

Yes. Even a 1st level magic missile is enough to kill a commoner, assuming they only have 1HD. Most spells if not all have the potential to turn the outcome of an encounter, and worst case scenario, kill some of the NPCs allies.

Let's assume magic is the equivalent of a gun wielding foe. Would you be willing to ignore the gun wielder because he might be out of ammo, or prioritize him as a target because he might not be?

[king_steve]

Why does it make logical sense to go after a wizard until he's actually cast something dangerous (or until you know he has that capability)? Seriously, can you explain the logic behind that?

I think that a reasonable in world explanation for targeting a wizard (or spell caster in general) over a martial character is to account for an element of the unknown. If you see someone do something magical, they could do something else magical. Magic spells tend to break a lot of conventions (making fire from nothing like Fireball or Fire bolt or causing someone to do something they wouldn't normally do like Charm Person or Command).

Seeing someone swinging a sword is pretty predictable. They'll swing it again if they get close to someone. Seeing a spell caster use magic could mean you don't know what they will do next because the breadth of what spells are capable of doing.

So, when I'm DM'ing I tend to have intelligent creatures making decisions based off what they can observe. Its not always obvious if someone's a spell caster or just someone wearing a robe but if an NPC sees someone cast a spell then it could raise alarm bells that they might not want them to cast any more spells. Obviously this will all depend on the situation, some NPCs are not familiar with spells based off their history (e.g. a bandit that works for an evil wizard might assume spell casters are wizards not clerics for example).

This is not to say that someone other than a spell caster could do something devastating (e.g. magic items or even interacting with the environment like cutting down a candelabra) and that could cause everyone to change their mind on who's the most important to attack for a RP reason.

[Gtdead]

I don't think the fixation with prioritizing wizards is logical at all. Wizard is the best target of an ambush and the success of the ambush depends entirely on if the wizard has died or not. If he manages to cast the spell, especially if it's not a concentration one, then it doesn't make much sense to prioritize him. The damage is done and the fightery classes are actually better at mopping up an encounter than the wizard. A wounded enemy should prioritize the martials, not the wizard that has already casted a spell.

Also any adventurer should know that the wizard with his mage armors and shields is harder to hit than the steelclad melee and counterspell is a far more effective solution to neutralize a spellcaster.

[Frogreaver]

Yes. Even a 1st level magic missile is enough to kill a commoner, assuming they only have 1HD. Most spells if not all have the potential to turn the outcome of an encounter, and worst case scenario, kill some of the NPCs allies.

If you are backpedalling on what it means to turn the outcome of an encounter then let's add in Greatswords in the hands of a fighter as something that can turn the outcome of an encounter. After this it's really not clear what the point of bringing up abilities that can turn an encounter was?


Let's assume magic is the equivalent of a gun wielding foe. Would you be willing to ignore the gun wielder because he might be out of ammo, or prioritize him as a target because he might not be?

Why would I assume that? Why wouldn't I assume the Greatsword wielding fighter is the guy you know has a loaded gun?

[Captain Panda]

Saw an online argument elsewhere that I thought was interesting. Someone was arguing that Barbarians without Great Weapon Master are basically useless, as they don’t do enough damage for the DM to target them, making your rage resistance a wasted feature.

This seems like bad DMing to me,

I'm on the side of the "bad DMing" in this case. Enemies, at least intelligent ones, should fight tactically like the players do. Consider that you are fighting an eldritch knight in full plate who is between you and a pair of enemy casters who rain down fireballs and debuffs that can halt half your party in their tracks. Do you, as a player, stop to fight the eldritch knight first? I kind of doubt it. If the situation is reversed and you aren't dealing with something dumb, they will need a good reason to stick around and swing at the "tank" and not the casters. The idea that creatures need to focus on the beefy boys feels a bit like MMO thinking, to me. When I play a tanky character, I also try to build such that I can punish enemies for ignoring me. If I can't do that, why shouldn't they just ignore me? That isn't bad DMing, that's just how people would act.

[Frogreaver]

I think that a reasonable in world explanation for targeting a wizard (or spell caster in general) over a martial character is to account for an element of the unknown. If you see someone do something magical, they could do something else magical. Magic spells tend to break a lot of conventions (making fire from nothing like Fireball or Fire bolt or causing someone to do something they wouldn't normally do like Charm Person or Command).

This makes the proposition become a risk assessment - which actually supports the idea that casters should not be the default option to target.


Seeing someone swinging a sword is pretty predictable. They'll swing it again if they get close to someone. Seeing a spell caster use magic could mean you don't know what they will do next because the breadth of what spells are capable of doing.

In general, melee combat is anything but predicatble. It's chaotic. One good hit of a sword can kill a man. And while HP in the game sense prevents this, that's not really what the underlying fiction represents.


So, when I'm DM'ing I tend to have intelligent creatures making decisions based off what they can observe. Its not always obvious if someone's a spell caster or just someone wearing a robe but if an NPC sees someone cast a spell then it could raise alarm bells that they might not want them to cast any more spells. Obviously this will all depend on the situation, some NPCs are not familiar with spells based off their history (e.g. a bandit that works for an evil wizard might assume spell casters are wizards not clerics for example).


Having intelligent enemies make decisions based on what they observe, what their capabilities are, and a bit of risk assessment of the unknown is exactly what I advocate for. Such a tactical assessment doesn't lead to most always prioritizing casters.


This is not to say that someone other than a spell caster could do something devastating (e.g. magic items or even interacting with the environment like cutting down a candelabra) and that could cause everyone to change their mind on who's the most important to attack for a RP reason.

Which takes us out of the generic 'always prioritize the spellcaster' which is all I've been explaining.

[MoiMagnus]

As for my main GM, when faced with an option "tactically better, but unintuitive, and potentially frustrating for the players" (like focussing the "seemingly not dangerous" mage at the back while there is a raging barbarian in front), he usually openly rolls an intelligence check for the creature (or for the enemy captain, if any), with a difficulty arbitrarily fixed and depending on how easy it is to figure it out that this choice is better.

[Frogreaver]

I'm on the side of the "bad DMing" in this case. Enemies, at least intelligent ones, should fight tactically like the players do. Consider that you are fighting an eldritch knight in full plate who is between you and a pair of enemy casters who rain down fireballs and debuffs that can halt half your party in their tracks. Do you, as a player, stop to fight the eldritch knight first? I kind of doubt it. If the situation is reversed and you aren't dealing with something dumb, they will need a good reason to stick around and swing at the "tank" and not the casters. The idea that creatures need to focus on the beefy boys feels a bit like MMO thinking, to me. When I play a tanky character, I also try to build such that I can punish enemies for ignoring me. If I can't do that, why shouldn't they just ignore me? That isn't bad DMing, that's just how people would act.

But the thing is, my side is arguing that enemies should react to what they see and know for sure. So if they see casters throw fireballs at the party then those casters have made themselves high priority targets. We are all in agreement there. The dispute is how they should prioritize casters that haven't yet thrown fireballs (or equivalent).

Outside fireballs or equivalently powerful magic, the guy with the sword or bow is probably a much bigger threat than a wizard throwing out firebolts.

[Asmotherion]

If you are backpedalling on what it means to turn the outcome of an encounter then let's add in Greatswords in the hands of a fighter as something that can turn the outcome of an encounter. After this it's really not clear what the point of bringing up abilities that can turn an encounter was?



Why would I assume that? Why wouldn't I assume the Greatsword wielding fighter is the guy you know has a loaded gun?

A) I'm not backpedalling, just stating the obvious. Even a single 1st level spell can become more lethal than a greatsword. One has the potential to miss and deal 0 Damage, while most spells deal at least half damage on a succesful save.

B) Because Magic, as a limited resourse is more powerful than a Greatsword. Magic could disable an entire group in one spell (Sleep for instance). Meanwhile the Greatsword wielding fighter might deal some HP damage. Magic could make your group deplay resources fighting illusions. Fighter deals more damage. And that's only talking about 1st level spells. The gap becomes larger and larger on higher level spells.

Magic is more dangerous, and more unpredictable than a greatsword or any other weapon. That's why it's logical to presume the caster will be the obvious target for a group of thinking people.

You failing to get the analogy makes me think you do it on purpose. Let's try again, shall we: Would you rather that your group be facing a single caster with a chance to disable your entire group in one spell or a single fighter who needs a minimum of as many turns to do the same as there are people in the party?

[Frogreaver]

A) I'm not backpedalling, just stating the obvious. Even a single 1st level spell can become more lethal than a greatsword. One has the potential to miss and deal 0 Damage, while most spells deal at least half damage on a succesful save.

Compared to first level spells the greatsword in the hands of a compotent fighter tends to be a greater threat and more apt to change the outcome of an encounter.


B) Because Magic, as a limited resourse is more powerful than a Greatsword. Magic could disable an entire group in one spell (Sleep for instance). Meanwhile the Greatsword wielding fighter might deal some HP damage. Magic could make your group deplay resources fighting illusions. Fighter deals more damage. And that's only talking about 1st level spells. The gap becomes larger and larger on higher level spells.

Magic is more dangerous, and more unpredictable than a greatsword or any other weapon. That's why it's logical to presume the caster will be the obvious target for a group of thinking people.

Magic CAN be more dangerous depending on the level of the caster, the spells he knows, the spells he has prepared, the slots he has left. But in general, without those details it's not.


You failing to get the analogy makes me think you do it on purpose. Let's try again, shall we: Would you rather that your group be facing a single caster with a chance to disable your entire group in one spell or a single fighter who needs a minimum of as many turns to do the same as there are people in the party?

If I knew the caster could cast a spell that could disable my entire group I would count him as more dangerous. But that's not known. The only way you can assume that is by applying metagame knowledge to the NPC's actions.

[JNAProductions]

How do you know the warrior with the sword can take out multiple people a turn without metagaming?

Most average soldiers make only one attack a turn. Those who can effectively attack more than once are few and far between.

[Frogreaver]

How do you know the warrior with the sword can take out multiple people a turn without metagaming?

The point is that in the fiction a sword only takes 1 solid hit to down a human opponent. In the fiction there is no guarantee about how long that solid hit will take to get. It could come instantly or take a few minutes. Mechanically we as players know that solid hit doesn't come until the opponent is low on hp - but that's not what is actually happening in the fiction.

This may actually be one of the bigger differences in targeting prioritization. The fictional expectation that swords can kill quickly and there's no expectation of a long fight.


Most average soldiers make only one attack a turn. Those who can effectively attack more than once are few and far between.

In the fiction the soldiers are swinging their weapons at each other to try and create opening. The attacks you are making don't represent how many times you are swinging the sword but how often you are able to force the opponent into a position where you might could kill him.

[False God]

@OP: IMO, when the enemy realizes that their attacks are having no effect.

That may be faster or slower depending on the enemy, but I'd argue most beasts and even fairly dumb but sentient enemies can understand when their attacks either aren't hitting or are but aren't having much of an effect.

I'm fairly sure even in the rules for spells, it notes that the caster is aware of when their spell takes effect, or doesn't.

How they react to that realization may not always be "ignore the target I can't hurt", but it's certainly a probable choice.

[Asmotherion]

Compared to first level spells the greatsword in the hands of a compotent fighter tends to be a greater threat and more apt to change the outcome of an encounter.



Magic CAN be more dangerous depending on the level of the caster, the spells he knows, the spells he has prepared, the slots he has left. But in general, without those details it's not.



If I knew the caster could cast a spell that could disable my entire group I would count him as more dangerous. But that's not known. The only way you can assume that is by applying metagame knowledge to the NPC's actions.

Even 1st level spells are more dangerous than a greatsword. And, more importantly, there is no instance were a greatsword wielder becomes even close to the threat level of a spellcaster of the same level.

In a world were magic is commonly used, there is no reason PCs would not know that to be true. It's common knowlage.

Assuming a caster does not have access to one of those spells is metagame, given the good spells far outnumber the "meh" ones. You would logically assume that, only if you knew the caster's stat block from the Monster Manual.

[Azuresun]

I often to ask my players to have their characters act as though a single goblin's spear-thrust could kill them. HP exists as a narrative cushion between this assumption and the actual play experience; when HP are depleted, that's a sign to actually describe a deadly wound.

I try to have the enemies behave in a similarly realistic manner: even if I am aware that the Great Weapon Master poses more of a threat than the sword-and-boarder, to the enemy they're both foes closing in with deadly weapons, and will both be treated as such.

Exactly. Realistically, if I see an enemy in plate armour with a longsword, a lightly armoured one with a greatsword and a guy throwing fire from his hands, I'm seeing three dangerous people armed with deadly weapons, and I'm sure as heck not considering getting stabbed by that longsword irrelevant.

[Frogreaver]

Even 1st level spells are more dangerous than a greatsword.

They really aren't though.


And, more importantly, there is no instance were a greatsword wielder becomes even close to the threat level of a spellcaster of the same level.

You mean besides the times the caster of equal level is out of spell slots altogether, or at least out of his level 2+ spells slots, or doesn't have good combat spells prepared, or doesn't know those good combat spells at all.

More importantly, why are the NPC's assuming this group of PC's they encountered are all the same level? That's probably the biggest assumption out of the lot of assumptions you have to progress through to get to the point that you believe it's logical and intelligent for casters to almost always be prioritized first.


In a world were magic is commonly used, there is no reason PCs would not know that to be true. It's common knowlage.

Unless they know the wizard and fighter are the same level then this is a moot point.


Assuming a caster does not have access to one of those spells is metagame, given the good spells far outnumber the "meh" ones. You would logically assume that, only if you knew the caster's stat block from the Monster Manual.

I'm making no assumptions about what spells or loadouts casters will have, not even what level they are. All I'm saying is that there isn't some universal truth that targeting the caster first is the most intelligent thing an NPC can do because there's no guarantee about what the caster in question is capable of doing. There's not even a roundabout way of guessing what the individual caster in question might be capable of with his magic. What that fact does is force uncertainty into the situation. There's inherently risk of attacking the caster and risk of not attacking the caster. The NPC's in question must determine how to weight such risks. They don't have the PHB or Monster Manual or DMG to base those weights on. Instead they have their experiences from their part of the world. They aren't just going to weight whether it's possible the Caster PC could be really powerful, but also how likely based on their experiences that they think it is that he is a powerful caster.

[ad_hoc]

Exactly. Realistically, if I see an enemy in plate armour with a longsword, a lightly armoured one with a greatsword and a guy throwing fire from his hands, I'm seeing three dangerous people armed with deadly weapons, and I'm sure as heck not considering getting stabbed by that longsword irrelevant.

The question isn't which one is the threat, the question is which one is weakest to attack (including disruption)?

Let's add a 4th character with a bow.

All 4 are dangerous. Which ones should melee enemies target first?

The 2 ranged characters of course.

[Asmotherion]

They really aren't though.



You mean besides the times the caster of equal level is out of spell slots altogether, or at least out of his level 2+ spells slots, or doesn't have good combat spells prepared, or doesn't know those good combat spells at all.

More importantly, why are the NPC's assuming this group of PC's they encountered are all the same level? That's probably the biggest assumption out of the lot of assumptions you have to progress through to get to the point that you believe it's logical and intelligent for casters to almost always be prioritized first.



Unless they know the wizard and fighter are the same level then this is a moot point.



I'm making no assumptions about what spells or loadouts casters will have, not even what level they are. All I'm saying is that there isn't some universal truth that targeting the caster first is the most intelligent thing an NPC can do because there's no guarantee about what the caster in question is capable of doing. There's not even a roundabout way of guessing what the individual caster in question might be capable of with his magic. What that fact does is force uncertainty into the situation. There's inherently risk of attacking the caster and risk of not attacking the caster. The NPC's in question must determine how to weight such risks. They don't have the PHB or Monster Manual or DMG to base those weights on. Instead they have their experiences from their part of the world. They aren't just going to weight whether it's possible the Caster PC could be really powerful, but also how likely based on their experiences that they think it is that he is a powerful caster.

Bolded part is exactly my point. As quoted by H.P. Lovecraft: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." When you have an unknown factor like "what spells can this caster cast" it is the thing that would logically stress you the most, and thus you would be more concerned about it.

Assuming "we're good because it's probably just a level 1 wizard" is as metagame-y as it can get.

Finally, I never said it's the only valid strategy, I'm just saying it's a logical strategy, and there is no reason to play NPCs as dump brutes that know nothing about strategy (as I've seen performed countless times).

[Hytheter]

As players, do you guys prioritise spellcasting enemies?

In my experience you either take out the casters ASAP or you sorely regret leaving them alive. It's what I do as a player and it's what I see as a DM.

[da newt]

Historically warriors have been taught to prioritize targeting the leadership first. I'd think any foe with training in group combat would be just as capable of learning that it is wise to take out the spell slingers first, but foes without any training would fight as a group of individuals - no real coordination or target prioritization.

The above of course applies to COMBAT - predatory behavior would be very different with predators working to separate one weak target from the group and killing it as safely as possible.

[KorvinStarmast]

As players, do you guys prioritise spellcasting enemies? In ToA, my ranger tended to shoot them first and to ask the paladin and the cleric to slow down the other enemies.

[RSP]

I find it humorous that this thread started about attacking the Barb over the Wizard: if the Barb is using Unarmored Defense, they may well look like similar targets (neither wearing armor).

But one thing I keep wondering after reading this thread, is why do NPCs assume anything based on attire?

Is the Bard in studded leather not a threat? How do they differ in “threat level by appearance” than a Rogue? Or a Ranger? Or a Dex-based Fighter? The Warlock?

Why is the full plate cleric a bigger perceived threat than the full plate fighter?

I’m 5e, assuming Multiclass, Wizards are as often as not (at least as I’ve seen) wearing armor (whether that’s a Cleric multiclass, Racial armors, or studded leather on a a Bladesinger). What, based on appearance makes them seem more of a threat? Not to mention EKs, Paladins and Clerics can all be full plate wearing casters.

Obviously, once a PC starts casting spells, they may be seen as a greater priority, but other than that, 5e just doesn’t lend itself to the dress-code stereotypes of past editions: NPCs assuming what abilities PCs have based on gear shouldn’t be a thing.

[Frogreaver]

Bolded part is exactly my point. As quoted by H.P. Lovecraft: "The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." When you have an unknown factor like "what spells can this caster cast" it is the thing that would logically stress you the most, and thus you would be more concerned about it.

Assuming "we're good because it's probably just a level 1 wizard" is as metagame-y as it can get.

Finally, I never said it's the only valid strategy, I'm just saying it's a logical strategy, and there is no reason to play NPCs as dump brutes that know nothing about strategy (as I've seen performed countless times).

You picked out 1 line and ignored everything else I said on the matter. I see no use in continuing if that's how you want to discuss. But I will say 1 last time as clearly and concisely as possible, I'm not assuming or having the NPCs assume anything at all about any caster. But you are.


I find it humorous that this thread started about attacking the Barb over the Wizard: if the Barb is using Unarmored Defense, they may well look like similar targets (neither wearing armor).

But one thing I keep wondering after reading this thread, is why do NPCs assume anything based on attire?

Is the Bard in studded leather not a threat? How do they differ in “threat level by appearance” than a Rogue? Or a Ranger? Or a Dex-based Fighter? The Warlock?

Why is the full plate cleric a bigger perceived threat than the full plate fighter?

I’m 5e, assuming Multiclass, Wizards are as often as not (at least as I’ve seen) wearing armor (whether that’s a Cleric multiclass, Racial armors, or studded leather on a a Bladesinger). What, based on appearance makes them seem more of a threat? Not to mention EKs, Paladins and Clerics can all be full plate wearing casters.

Obviously, once a PC starts casting spells, they may be seen as a greater priority, but other than that, 5e just doesn’t lend itself to the dress-code stereotypes of past editions: NPCs assuming what abilities PCs have based on gear shouldn’t be a thing.

Yep, and also if it does become a thing then it's easy as heck to abuse.

[Sigreid]

Personally, I think the issue is caused by the increasing HP system. People tend to not think in terms of the characters and NPCs in world don't know they have a mountain of HP and the sword is not likely to do them in after the first few levels/CR. In world, both characters and NPCs don't see "outside a crit that guy with the sword can only maybe do 1/10th of my hp", they see a trained killer with a deadly weapon and should respond accordingly in my opinion. Basically, melee only gets ignored because players and DM are aware how many HP they have and what a sword could do.

[Glorthindel]

I’m 5e, assuming Multiclass, Wizards are as often as not (at least as I’ve seen) wearing armor (whether that’s a Cleric multiclass, Racial armors, or studded leather on a a Bladesinger). What, based on appearance makes them seem more of a threat? Not to mention EKs, Paladins and Clerics can all be full plate wearing casters.

Obviously, once a PC starts casting spells, they may be seen as a greater priority, but other than that, 5e just doesn’t lend itself to the dress-code stereotypes of past editions: NPCs assuming what abilities PCs have based on gear shouldn’t be a thing.

I actually used this in a Hackmaster campaign - the Hackmaster version of Mage Armour created the illusion of wearing Field Plate, and the party fighter was a dex-based Duellist who didn't wear armour. Until I got a very flashy magic staff, which is a bit harder to disguise, we deliberately embellished our appearances to make him look like the magic-user (I wore a Greatsword slung on my back, and my Familiar perched on his shoulder). Didn't hold in an encounter past the first turn or two as the Fireballs rained and he was carving through bads, but at first look it would have been hard to claim I should be the priority target for ranged enemies.

[Unoriginal]

As players, do you guys prioritise spellcasting enemies?

In my experience you either take out the casters ASAP or you sorely regret leaving them alive. It's what I do as a player and it's what I see as a DM.

Players may want to prioritize casters, but it doesn't mean they can afford to.


Personally, I think the issue is caused by the increasing HP system. People tend to not think in terms of the characters and NPCs in world don't know they have a mountain of HP and the sword is not likely to do them in after the first few levels/CR. In world, both characters and NPCs don't see "outside a crit that guy with the sword can only maybe do 1/10th of my hp", they see a trained killer with a deadly weapon and should respond accordingly in my opinion. Basically, melee only gets ignored because players and DM are aware how many HP they have and what a sword could do.

Except that doesn't make sense to ignore something that can kills you in 10 hits either.

People talk as if any rational being with free will confronted by an enemy who can kill them in 1 min would ignore that enemy for the 54 first seconds.

Melee only get ignored if the DM plays all NPCs like automatons with a death wish.

[Frogreaver]

Players may want to prioritize casters, but it doesn't mean they can afford to.

There’s also the notion that encounters tend to be set up as winnable for the PCs. That means monsters have to swing above their weight class to win. NPC casters generally can punch above their weight class and have weak defenses. This makes the best PC tactic to target NPC casters usually because it’s the risk averse option (and yes it is a bit metagamey)

However there’s an assymetry there. NPCs trying to punch above their weight class cannot afford to leave attack opportunities on the table or take OAs without very good reason. They are probably going to lose anyways and so they need to take some risks to win. Also, PC casters tend to have more defensive options than the NPC ones.

One such risk may be ignoring the casters in the hopes that their spells miss, since many spells have no effect on a miss. Yes it’s a risk and gamble, but potentially an intelligent one.

[AHF]

Just to give my $.02:

1) It is unfair metagaming if the DM gives the opponents knowledge they could not have otherwise like distinguishing between the breastplate wearing, rapier wielding valor Bard from the breastplate wearing, rapier wielding Dex Champion fighter or the studded armor wearing Bladesinger from the studded armor wearing swashbuckler, etc. Probably more realistic to distinguish between the bulging muscles of the robe wearing hulk with the battle ax strapped to his back from the smaller robe wearing guy with spell components and a wand at his side.

2) It makes perfect sense to target spell casters in most D&D worlds. Spell casters are the ones who can dominate your mind to make you do something against your will (suggestion, crown of madness, dominate person, dissonant whispers, enemies abound, fear, etc.), incapacitate you (sleep, hideous laughter, hold person/monster, hypnotic pattern, entangle, command, etc), and who buff/debuff to change the balance of encounters (bless, bane, blindness, haste, greater invisibility, polymorph, etc.), summon allies (conjure animals, elementals, fey, undead, celestial, fiends, etc.) and that is before getting to the fireball type scenarios mentioned already or a myriad of other things that can be done (silence, heat metal, banishment, etc.). A lot of those spells that can completely take you out of combat are even first level. I think people would have enough familiarity with magic to know that (a) casters aren't necessarily the biggest threat but disproportionately are and (b) that they also tend to be easier to kill quickly if you can get to them (not always the case but disproportionately so).

So I don't consider that meta-gamey at all for NPC's to target the casters. It would almost be immersion breaking if they didn't given how strong casters are relative to pure martials in 5e. The analogy made earlier of it being logical to prioritize the person with the gun (i.e., the caster) over those with knives (i.e., the martial) seems reasonably apt to me.

The key to running a fair encounter is only letting the NPCs act on the information that they should have in game and not metagaming to target certain characters because of what the DM knows but the NPCs would not.

[Unoriginal]

It would almost be immersion breaking if they didn't given how strong casters are relative to pure martials in 5e.

Casters are not stronger than pure martials in 5e.



The analogy made earlier of it being logical to prioritize the person with the gun (i.e., the caster) over those with knives (i.e., the martial) seems reasonably apt to me.

In such situation, someone who focuses on the person with the gun and ignore those with knives will likely die stabbed.



The key to running a fair encounter is only letting the NPCs act on the information that they should have in game and not metagaming to target certain characters because of what the DM knows but the NPCs would not.

That is true.

[Tanarii]

As players, do you guys prioritise spellcasting enemies?
Not unless they think it's an opponent worth worrying about. They'll generally do some kind of rudimentary threat assessment.

But the second an enemy casts a spell they do that threat assessment. It instantly draws attention. And that's the relevant aspect of your question, I believe.


Casters are not stronger than pure martials in 5e.
This bears repeating. Because claims otherwise are made far too often. Although it's also worth noting that 1/3 of martials are half casters and 1/2 of them have caster subclasses. But even for the ones that can't cast any spells it still holds true.

But, in the case of PC spellcasters, it is often true they are viewed as more offensively oriented than defensively oriented. This is primarily because of Wizards/sorcerers/warlocks/bards of course, but it's still a common view. Among both players and DMs. And that view often bleeds over into how both kinds of spellcasters, PCs and Monsters, are viewed.

[ad_hoc]

Players may want to prioritize casters, but it doesn't mean they can afford to.



Except that doesn't make sense to ignore something that can kills you in 10 hits either.

People talk as if any rational being with free will confronted by an enemy who can kill them in 1 min would ignore that enemy for the 54 first seconds.

Melee only get ignored if the DM plays all NPCs like automatons with a death wish.

But all characters are threats. If the enemy creatures/NPCs are that worried about dying they shouldn't be in a conflict in the first place.

It's best to take out the threats that you're able to quicker.


Casters are not stronger than pure martials in 5e.



In such situation, someone who focuses on the person with the gun and ignore those with knives will likely die stabbed.



That is true.

The difference is that they're going to get stabbed either way.

Better to only get stabbed rather than stabbed and shot.

[Asmotherion]

You picked out 1 line and ignored everything else I said on the matter. I see no use in continuing if that's how you want to discuss. But I will say 1 last time as clearly and concisely as possible, I'm not assuming or having the NPCs assume anything at all about any caster. But you are.



Yep, and also if it does become a thing then it's easy as heck to abuse.
A) Not different of what you were doing so far. So don't call out people on something you've been doing the entire disscusion.
B) I honestly think you're unable to find a vallid arguement at this point. I am assuming a caster is something more dangerous than a martial, like I would assume a lion is more dangerous than a Kobold. It's called common sense. Use it more.


Casters are not stronger than pure martials in 5e.
Then, explain to me why in my last session, my Wizard character disabled an entire room of Giants in one action, in a battle that was considered to be certain doom? Meanwhile the martials were taking small portions of HP from the giants that was insignificant to be a real threat to them. Magic is always a stronger weapon than simple attack spamming, because it's so versatile. That's why it's more of a threat than a weapon; Until one knows what spells the caster has prepared, it is unlimited potential.

[Sigreid]

Except that doesn't make sense to ignore something that can kills you in 10 hits either.

People talk as if any rational being with free will confronted by an enemy who can kill them in 1 min would ignore that enemy for the 54 first seconds.

Melee only get ignored if the DM plays all NPCs like automatons with a death wish.

The point really was that the game mechanics and meta gaming mean that people treat weapons like they aren't as dangerous as the character should consider them.

[Captain Panda]

Casters are not stronger than pure martials in 5e.


At level 4? Sure. At level 10? That's totally false.

[Unoriginal]

But all characters are threats. If the enemy creatures/NPCs are that worried about dying they shouldn't be in a conflict in the first place.

...most creatures who realize they're risking death will do everything they can to avoid it.



It's best to take out the threats that you're able to quicker.

It's best to take out the threats that you're able to with the less risk for yourself. Doesn't necessarily mean "attacking the squishy first", and certainly doesn't mean "ignore someone who can deal damage to you".



The difference is that they're going to get stabbed either way.

Better to only get stabbed rather than stabbed and shot.

What if you could avoid both getting stabbed and shot, at the cost of only attacking one of the stabby-stabbers (this round)? Would you consider this a good trade-off? And more to the point, would the people in this combat situation consider it a good trade-off?

[ad_hoc]

...most creatures who realize they're risking death will do everything they can to avoid it.


Yes, that's the point. Unless you're advocating for no combats to happen? In which case why have the conversation?




It's best to take out the threats that you're able to with the less risk for yourself. Doesn't necessarily mean "attacking the squishy first", and certainly doesn't mean "ignore someone who can deal damage to you".


But that's the point, if you can't take out the threat right away, why ignore the threats who you can eliminate?

And not attacking a creature is not 'ignoring' them, you're still going to defend yourself against their attacks as best you can.




What if you could avoid both getting stabbed and shot, at the cost of only attacking one of the stabby-stabbers (this round)? Would you consider this a good trade-off? And more to the point, would the people in this combat situation consider it a good trade-off?


But you're not avoiding getting stabbed, that's the thing. And yes you are just as much in danger of getting stabbed whether you engage with the sword wielder or not. Someone is getting shot if you 'ignore' the shooter. But if you get in the face of the shooter then you might prevent someone from being shot. That's the whole weakness of ranged attacks that people say are overpowered. They're not overpowered if you engage in melee with them.


What is scarier - A group of orcs who surround the fighter or a group of orcs who run past the fighter and surround the caster and/or archer?

In my experience players don't care about the former but get mighty worried about the latter.

[nickl_2000]

What is scarier - A group of orcs who surround the fighter or a group of orcs who run past the fighter and surround the caster and/or archer?

In my experience players don't care about the former but get mighty worried about the latter.

In my group we encourage the former specifically to avoid the latter. In fact, our Wizard considers the super high AC Paladin as his "armor." We do what we can to make sure this happens. Set up chokepoints, make terrain dangerous, enbiggen (enlarge spell) the Paladin to block of a hallway better, punish anyone who tried to run past the tank.

If the Wizard, Warlock, and Rogue never get attacked a single time in combat the Paladin has been effective even is he didn't do as much damage.

[Tanarii]

Then, explain to me why in my last session, my Wizard character disabled an entire room of Giants in one action, in a battle that was considered to be certain doom? Meanwhile the martials were taking small portions of HP from the giants that was insignificant to be a real threat to them. Magic is always a stronger weapon than simple attack spamming, because it's so versatile. That's why it's more of a threat than a weapon; Until one knows what spells the caster has prepared, it is unlimited potential.

Casters tend to have powerful but limited resource abilities in their spells. Including offensively.

It's true that tends to make them a larger one turn threat if you have any reason to believe they have those resources at their disposal.

[ad_hoc]

In my group we encourage the former specifically to avoid the latter. In fact, our Wizard considers the super high AC Paladin as his "armor." We do what we can to make sure this happens. Set up chokepoints, make terrain dangerous, enbiggen (enlarge spell) the Paladin to block of a hallway better, punish anyone who tried to run past the tank.

If the Wizard, Warlock, and Rogue never get attacked a single time in combat the Paladin has been effective even is he didn't do as much damage.

And that sounds like a fun combat to me.

What if instead of all that the orcs just attack the Paladin by default and you don't need to bother with positioning or battlefield control spells?

What if you are successful at controlling the flow of combat in every or most combats? Wouldn't that feel too easy?

[CapnWildefyr]

Saw an online argument elsewhere that I thought was interesting. Someone was arguing that Barbarians without Great Weapon Master are basically useless, as they don’t do enough damage for the DM to target them, making your rage resistance a wasted feature.

This seems like bad DMing to me, but how do others feel about it, and have you run into the issue of being completely ignored as a martial PC with strong defenses? Obviously there’s a range of behavior depending on intelligence and how obvious the party spellcasters are (invoker in a pointy hat vs. war cleric in full plate) but ignoring a sword & board barbarian hitting you with a longsword for 20-30 damage per turn, especially if you can *see* your hits are landing on them seems like metagaming by the DM.

Sure, sometimes melee combatants will rush past you to get to the Wizard in the back, but if they have to dash and eat an opportunity attack to do it, they’re not going to do it 100% of the time, and they’re certainly not going to focus fire on the guy in plate mail over the guy wearing no armor at all thinking “that GWM Battlemaster has higher DPR and fewer HP, get ‘em!”

Am I an outlier on this? Obviously if you play it like a minis skirmish game Barbarians are weak and every party should be some mix of Shepherd Druids and Sharpshooter Battle Masters or Samurai, but even when the monsters know what they’re doing, they don’t know *that*.

I set up encounters with a thought process for the "enemy" -- regarding how they will react to the PCs -- using the following cascade of thought/combat "wisdom":

Personal experience fighting this group of PCs --> personal experience fighting groups of PCs --> personal experience fighting different types of creatures (human, elf, wizard, rogue in general) --> hearsay about fighting this or similar opponents (as in, the Chief told us these guys are tough and X throws fireballs) --> personal experience in who looks mean & nasty in a fight (varies by "monster" since monsters value different things). Then I temper this by "stupid" as needed.

Examples (assuming a party of humans, elves, dwarves):

Vampire expects a fight with the PCs. Vampire is old, smart, and experienced vs PCs in general, and has been tracking these PCs. Not stupid. Knows a bit (not everything!) about the PCs' capabilities and limitations. Expect a tough fight, he doesn't wanna get staked so he & minions will get nasty and yes will try to optimize for overall lethality.
Hill giants expect a fight with these PCs. They've fought humans and elves and dwarves before, and ate them. They know there's a powerful spellcaster, they've seen the fireworks display during previous combats. But, stupid. Even though they know what to do, they don't believe it and still do not target the PCs well, because stupid. Also, not overly coordinated.
Fire giants in the same situation: much tougher, but not as tough as the vampire. They will have better plans on who to target first, and better execution of those plans, and will try to limit the PCs effectiveness.


Now, I don't try to exterminate the party! But -- based on the monsters, and what the monsters expect to encounter, and what they've experienced, I try to make it challenging. I mean, if it looks like I'm heading towards an optimized TPK, I adjust things.

For me, whether the not Barb has feat X or Y only comes into play if the monsters have knowledge of that type of thing. So your question, for me, never becomes a "thing." Or I try, anyway.

[RSP]

I actually used this in a Hackmaster campaign - the Hackmaster version of Mage Armour created the illusion of wearing Field Plate.

My current melee Sorc uses it in a similar way, though it’s not an illusion; just that the “protective magical force” that surrounds him has the appearance of plate (this isn’t even against RAW as nothing in the spell description states what the magical force looks like, or that it’s invisible, so that appearance is as RAW as any other appearance.

Though my Sorc does it because he wants to be a fighter and is the first one to engage enemies in melee.

[Tanarii]

At level 4? Sure. At level 10? That's totally false.
Even at level 13 (the highest I've run games for), it's still true.

[OvisCaedo]

(RE: casters are not stronger than martials)

Even at level 13 (the highest I've run games for), it's still true.

It probably is true from the perspective of actually playing the game! Though I wonder how true it would feel in-universe from a character/monster's perspective. Casters are terrifying when they just unleash all of their strongest powers... but they can't actually just do that constantly in every fight, or even most of them. But when a group of bandits or something get into a fight with a merry band of adventurers, do they KNOW that the party is going to be worried about conserving resources for the next bunch of fights in the day? Hell, from the perspective of an enemy, how many fights do they plan on getting into in one day? How often should enemy squads also act with resource conservation in mind?

Maybe they SHOULD expect that casters won't just be able to dump out a bunch of their theoretically strongest spells, just because it might be extremely rarely done in-universe even if it is possible. Every GM might have a different idea of how widespread magic and casters even are...

Of course, none of these factors will ever really be consistent across games, and trying to deep delve into what sort of mindset the game's universe should have drilled into the NPCs in question every single time sounds... strenuous! How much information the enemies should act like they have has a lot to weigh in both from a balancing perspective and roleplaying ones.

one of many reasons I don't really DM myself, I suppose, I'd feel way too inclined to try to overanalyze this stuff whenever it comes up.

[Unoriginal]

But that's the point, if you can't take out the threat right away, why ignore the threats who you can eliminate?

All threats can be eliminated, in this situation.



And not attacking a creature is not 'ignoring' them, you're still going to defend yourself against their attacks as best you can.

That is not the situation presented in the OP. According to the OP, people argue that Barbarians without GWM can be ignored due to not dealing enough damage.






But you're not avoiding getting stabbed, that's the thing.

Really, there is no situation where anyone on the battlefield can avoid getting hurt for one round, at your tables?



And yes you are just as much in danger of getting stabbed whether you engage with the sword wielder or not. Someone is getting shot if you 'ignore' the shooter. But if you get in the face of the shooter then you might prevent someone from being shot. That's the whole weakness of ranged attacks that people say are overpowered. They're not overpowered if you engage in melee with them.

And yet sometime you have to engage the sword wielder anyway, even if there is a shooter you'd like to kill.

My point is that you can't just go "let's kill the caster/shooter first". There are other tactical concerns that both PCs and NPCs will have to take into account, such as...



What is scarier - A group of orcs who surround the fighter or a group of orcs who run past the fighter and surround the caster and/or archer?

What is scarier for the orcs: a group of orcs that splits in order to have half of them around the fighter while the rest target the caster and/or archer while their Mage ally stays in the back, a group of orcs who surround the fighter only while their Mage ally stays in the back, or a group of orcs who run past the fighter and surround the caster and/or archer and as such give the fighter free range to charge the Mage ally?

My whole argument is that you can't assume that the NPCs can afford to focus on killing the casters among the PC group.

[Tanarii]

(RE: casters are not stronger than martials)


It probably is true from the perspective of actually playing the game! Though I wonder how true it would feel in-universe from a character/monster's perspective. Casters are terrifying when they just unleash all of their strongest powers... but they can't actually just do that constantly in every fight, or even most of them. But when a group of bandits or something get into a fight with a merry band of adventurers, do they KNOW that the party is going to be worried about conserving resources for the next bunch of fights in the day? Hell, from the perspective of an enemy, how many fights do they plan on getting into in one day? How often should enemy squads also act with resource conservation in mind?
Given that the "balancing" method for encounters provided to DMs is based on 3 rounds of damage output, that's fair. That model breaks down for non-damaging but dangerous spells, but yes, three round of deadly output and then being based out is scarier than moderately dangerous for 20 rounds of combat.

As I said in a different post, IMO it's fair to consider a caster, or at least one that works on principles remotely like PCs, more dangerous if you have any reason to believe they have they have their limited resources available. Same would hold true for monsters with any non-rechargeable resource for that matter.

It's just the global claim that casters are more powerful than martials I disagree with. Even putting aside that some martials are casters and vice versa, full casters PCs aren't "more powerful" than complete non-caster PCs.