What Meta do the Monsters Operate Under?

[Dr.Samurai]

Inspired by all the times I see "then the monster will ignore you and go after the squishy target in the back" or "then you'll make yourself an obvious target for the monsters to attack".

Generally you see these comments when people are talking about tanks or tough defender-type characters, or if someone is shirking their AC or other defenses.

Full disclosure, I've never liked these arguments. It seems kind of ridiculous that a monster would ignore the armored warrior swinging the sword at its face because it "did the math" and realized the most efficient course of action is to tank some OAs and go after the robed guy in the back. But to each their own.

However, it does make me think... what is the Meta that the monsters operate under?

PCs know not to split up their efforts but to focus fire, and that a single hit isn't going to kill them or their target, and that this monster is a boss and that one is a mook, etc.

What do monsters know? It seems the only thing monsters know is that "lightly armored person is easy prey" and "big dumb brute is inefficient target". Is that all they should know? Or would know? Do they know this because the wizard just hit them with a spell and they should take out the spellcaster now? Or because it's just a known thing in the world? If combats only last 2-3 rounds, is all of this meta virtually useless because it's all over so soon?

Do monsters know that they can't take hostages? Or that PCs will walk through damaging hazards if they feel they can take the damage? Do monsters know about cover and line of sight to use that against ranged enemies and casters?

Do monsters only know to ignore "tanks" and target wizards or does their meta go beyond that?

[Sparky McDibben]

As much as their Intelligence and Wisdom scores, and their general experiences would let them know.

Owlbears go for the shiniest character. Goblins use ambush tactics, traps, mobility, and poison to even the odds. They're more than intelligent enough to focus fire on a squishy...if there's someone coordinating their fire.

Humans and dwarves, operating in military units, can leverage volley fire, dense formation fighting, and cavalry.

[Willowhelm]

https://www.themonstersknow.com/

Not that I always agree with it, but it can be a nice prompt to think about different approaches they might take.

[LudicSavant]

Full disclosure, I've never liked these arguments. It seems kind of ridiculous that a monster would ignore the armored warrior swinging the sword at its face because it "did the math" and realized the most efficient course of action is to tank some OAs and go after the robed guy in the back.

Why is that ridiculous? Pushing past a defensive line to get to an objective is a thing people do in real life. And they do it even more in fantasy fiction where there are vast discrepancies in character durability / threat levels. Batman will absolutely go around the guy with "nigh-invulnerability" as a superpower to get at the person who is going to take control of his mind if given 3 seconds of breathing room. It'd be rather silly not to.

Like, you've got a rampaging dragon crashing through the room going for whoever the hell it wants. Is it just too dumb to prioritize the guy charging the anti-dragon howitzer because it'll possibly get poked on the way out the guy who just got barreled over by the mighty beat of their Wing Attack? What, does a tank stop firing at the artillery because it'll take some small arms fire?

"Doing the math" isn't some esoteric idea that exists only in games. Threat assessment and prioritization is just like... basic tactics.

[Psyren]

As much as their Intelligence and Wisdom scores, and their general experiences would let them know.

Owlbears go for the shiniest character. Goblins use ambush tactics, traps, mobility, and poison to even the odds. They're more than intelligent enough to focus fire on a squishy...if there's someone coordinating their fire.

Humans and dwarves, operating in military units, can leverage volley fire, dense formation fighting, and cavalry.

This. "Monsters" are not a monolith, and treating them like one is a mistake.

A lich is going to know that the guy standing in a dress in the back is the major threat, because that's probably how they became a lich in the first place. A golem will follow its programming, and not prioritize any targets beyond its current one unless its instructions lead it to. A vampire is going to try going after the guys in shiny armor because he'll have a decent chance of getting to look into their eyes while they're up close, and send them at their comrades... at least, until one of the armored guys holds their holy symbol aloft.

There are as many different tactical considerations as there are monsters. There is no single "meta."

[kazaryu]

Inspired by all the times I see "then the monster will ignore you and go after the squishy target in the back" or "then you'll make yourself an obvious target for the monsters to attack".

Generally you see these comments when people are talking about tanks or tough defender-type characters, or if someone is shirking their AC or other defenses.

Full disclosure, I've never liked these arguments. It seems kind of ridiculous that a monster would ignore the armored warrior swinging the sword at its face because it "did the math" and realized the most efficient course of action is to tank some OAs and go after the robed guy in the back. But to each their own.

However, it does make me think... what is the Meta that the monsters operate under?

PCs know not to split up their efforts but to focus fire, and that a single hit isn't going to kill them or their target, and that this monster is a boss and that one is a mook, etc.

What do monsters know? It seems the only thing monsters know is that "lightly armored person is easy prey" and "big dumb brute is inefficient target". Is that all they should know? Or would know? Do they know this because the wizard just hit them with a spell and they should take out the spellcaster now? Or because it's just a known thing in the world? If combats only last 2-3 rounds, is all of this meta virtually useless because it's all over so soon?

Do monsters know that they can't take hostages? Or that PCs will walk through damaging hazards if they feel they can take the damage? Do monsters know about cover and line of sight to use that against ranged enemies and casters?

Do monsters only know to ignore "tanks" and target wizards or does their meta go beyond that?

i don't have a catch all. it depends on so many things, including how dangerous i want the combat to be. Because no matter what people will say, interactions between living creatures are complex enough that you can justify anything as realistic. even sub-optimal play.
why did the rogue target the 300 hp rage monster instead of the unarmored bard 10 feet away? because the tree he was hiding behind didn't afford a good view of the bard, and he didn't want to risk exposing himself.
why didn't the assassin dodge around the full plate wearing dude to go after the robed wizard behind him? didn't want to turn his back on the guy with the sharpened length of steel.
why did the Wolf ignore the warrior trying to get its attention right next to it? rogue smelled tastier.

in short, if I, the DM, want a monster to act a certain way, its not a question of 'what would that monster do given X information'. Living things don't have the level of consistency required for that type of guarantee. you can discuss probabilities, and what is likely. you can discuss what makes the most sense. but its too limiting, IMO, to try to pretend there's an objective answer to that question. Instead i focus on what i want to happen, and what would be required to justify it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This. "Monsters" are not a monolith, and treating them like one is a mistake.

A lich is going to know that the guy standing in a dress in the back is the major threat, because that's probably how they became a lich in the first place. A golem will follow its programming, and not prioritize any targets beyond its current one unless its instructions lead it to. A vampire is going to try going after the guys in shiny armor because he'll have a decent chance of getting to look into their eyes while they're up close, and send them at their comrades... at least, until one of the armored guys holds their holy symbol aloft.

There are as many different tactical considerations as there are monsters. There is no single "meta."

And for intelligent creatures, it may also depend on their objectives. The monsters do have objectives, right? They're not just robotic punching bags? And culture, and individual personality[1].

[1] sure, you might not give every goblin an individual personality. But it gives a lot of depth to give some people basic "he's a coward", "he's particularly clever", etc traits.

[Dr.Samurai]

Why is that ridiculous?
Because it's totally unrealistic, which is why I am asking the question in the OP, though I see now I should have said "enemy NPCs" as opposed to "monsters". It sounds less like thoughtful consideration and more like caster supremacy arrogance. So I'm curious how it's justified, because it strikes me as a kamikaze move. And... let's be honest, that's what it is. The enemies/monsters die anyways right? They just die chasing after the caster instead of facing the armored sword-wielding hulk in front of them. This is just a logic equation that people run on the forums non-stop... If frontline, then ignore and if caster, then maintain focus.

Pushing past a defensive line to get to an objective is a thing people do in real life. And they do it even more in fantasy fiction where there are vast discrepancies in character durability / threat levels. Batman will absolutely go around the guy with "nigh-invulnerability" as a superpower to get at the person who is going to take control of his mind if given 3 seconds of breathing room. It'd be rather silly not to.
What breathing room though? You're not "getting away" from anyone. You're not one-shotting the caster. You're walking past the tank, who is hitting you with an opportunity attack. You're going to attack the caster, and your attack won't kill the caster. The caster is going to misty step away. The tank is going to walk back over to you and unload another Attack action. You're going to ignore the tank and chase after the caster and eat another OA, etc etc.

So what is the enemy NPC thinking here is what I want to know. What is the path to victory as they see it?

Like, you've got a rampaging dragon crashing through the room going for whoever the hell it wants. Is it just too dumb to prioritize the guy charging the anti-dragon howitzer because it'll possibly get poked on the way out the guy who just got barreled over by the mighty beat of their Wing Attack? What, does a tank stop firing at the artillery because it'll take some small arms fire?
Let's ignore stupid animals and genius dragons. What do bandits do? What do guards do? What do the elite orc warriors in a tribe do? You tell me an Aboleth is lurking in the water near the shore and isn't too worried about the frontline and sends its Skum warriors to take out the casters? Cool, no problem, I understand that. The Aboleth is in 6ft of water and isn't worried about someone that can't swim wielding a greataxe. But that's one scenario. That IS tactics. But the way this forum talks about it, this is just the way all encounters go.

"Doing the math" isn't some esoteric idea that exists only in games. Threat assessment and prioritization is just like... basic tactics.
Online meta doesn't talk about tactics though. It literally says the tank will be ignored in favor of the caster. That's why there's all of this angst over "tank mechanics" like Ancestral Guardian, because you need some special ability to make enemies want to focus on you as a frontline character. So given that we know the game doesn't simulate combat realistically, that the bandit isn't going to run over and just gut the wizard dead with a single stroke, that they haven't maneuvered far enough away for the armored fighter not to simply hustle over and wail on them... what is the plan? What's the tactic here? Because it sounds like "literally ignore the frontline". It sounds like everyone plays the bad guys as thinking "If I just take out the wizard, I will turn the tide of this combat in my favor!" but we all know that the bad guy can't just walk over and "take out the wizard".

There are as many different tactical considerations as there are monsters. There is no single "meta."
There is certainly a "single meta" when it comes to "ignore the frontline, go after casters". I shouldn't have used "monsters" because it appears everyone is taking that as "literally all monsters together at once" or "bears". One thing that every forum poster's D&D world has in common is that the frontline can generally be ignored.

But even if we ignore me harping on the frontline issue, what are the considerations monsters have in their tactics? What do they know about the world? What are their assumptions? We grant all enemies "Armor equals tough/slogfest, robe equals easy pickings". What else do they know about the world?

in short, if I, the DM, want a monster to act a certain way, its not a question of 'what would that monster do given X information'. Living things don't have the level of consistency required for that type of guarantee. you can discuss probabilities, and what is likely. you can discuss what makes the most sense. but its too limiting, IMO, to try to pretend there's an objective answer to that question. Instead i focus on what i want to happen, and what would be required to justify it.
This is how I have played it as well back when I DMed in 3rd edition. I go by the intelligence of the monster/enemy and what it's experiences are, and use that as a guideline. But once combat begins, it's pretty much how the DM wants it to go down.

[Tanarii]

I like old school, minus a focus on unarmored foes:
Swarm the PCs if you have the numbers. Try to separate them if possible.
Always try to kill spellcasters first
Protect your spellcasters.

Used to be armor was a pretty reliable indicator in universe if something was hard to hit. In WotC D&D it isn't, that should be known in-universe IMO.

You can make an argument that a warrior in the face is more dangerous than a spellcaster in 5e. But that's only true for PCs IMO, and is largely due to spellcasters needing to conserve resources for a full adventuring day. In a nova situation it's generally not the case, so the "always try to kill spellcasters first" meta should hold true.

Certainly the combination of no armor and spellcaster should definitely be a priority target ... it's still more often than not true that these casters are very focused on offense and have weak defenses.

[JackPhoenix]

It seems you're mistaking general assumptions for a script that must always be followed no matter the circumstances. That's not how things work. Of course people are making general statements on a forum, because they can't offer an insight into specific circumstances of every single encounter the character will face in the campaign.

Generally, you take out the biggest threat first, if you can. Generally, spellcasters are more dangerous than non-casters. Generally, you'll need to balance defense and offence, because focusing too much on one at the expanse of other will get you ignored as tough, but not threatening, or focused on as a glass cannon that's too dangerous to let live for long. Generally, if you want enemies to attack you instead of the others, you'll need to give them a reason to. That's always true, and that's why people keep mentioning it again and again.

In a specific encounter? Tactics matters. Enviroment matters. Specifics of the participants... on boths sides of the encounter... matters. Objectives matters. And yes, even roleplaying matters (and if not and you focus solely on "meta" as a GM, you've failed your job). But those are not things that play a role in a generalized discussion about a character build.

[Rynjin]

Did 5e do away with the "Tactics" section of a lot of encounters or something? This argument come sup a bizarrely high number of times.

[strangebloke]

Because it's totally unrealistic, which is why I am asking the question in the OP, though I see now I should have said "enemy NPCs" as opposed to "monsters". It sounds less like thoughtful consideration and more like caster supremacy arrogance. So I'm curious how it's justified, because it strikes me as a kamikaze move. And... let's be honest, that's what it is. The enemies/monsters die anyways right? They just die chasing after the caster instead of facing the armored sword-wielding hulk in front of them. This is just a logic equation that people run on the forums non-stop... If frontline, then ignore and if caster, then maintain focus.

I don't agree. It might be unrealistic for some monsters. Something like a zombie shouldn't be breaking out advanced tactics.

But something like a ghoul, as one example, will probably know to grab the 'weaker' meat away from the party as soon as they can. They're not smart but hunting and killing people is all they know. Compared to me, who's barely ever been in a fight, they're basically triple PHDs on the topic of how to hunt and kill prey. And this is still a very stupid ghoul! For fully sapient enemies like hobgoblins or orcs, good tactics becomes even more compulsory. Orcs live for this stuff. Of course they'll know to tie down the less-armored person in melee. Cut down the weak, break their morale!

Granted, this can lead to fun situations. They might try to focus down a monk with 20 AC for example, or a barbarian who's attacking recklessly. After all, they're unarmored and 'soft' right? ...right?

[LudicSavant]

Online meta doesn't talk about tactics though.

I literally just gave you an example of a specific monster tactic:

Dragon uses Wing Attack as a Legendary action, it knocks prone the "tank" that thought they didn't need to take anything to help make them mobile or sticky, and allows it to move faster than "tanks" with such mindsets move (especially after they're knocked prone), and then can follow that up with eating the back lines. Even better, the fear aura makes it so that the "tank" has to make a Wis save to approach.

So you are getting away from someone, you are chasing down the caster, and if the caster is using Misty Step, it's an action economy win for you.

There's nothing "unrealistic" about that. It's just dragon tactics 101. It doesn't even require a smart dragon. Just a dragon who can identify "hey, that looks like a squishy dangerous guy, I think I'll eat him first. Also, no reason to just keep standing next to this slow axe guy."

[Drascin]

Honestly, for me it varies a lot depending on monster. And they will generally shift tactics depending on what players do, up to and including bailing if it's quickly obvious that this fight is unwinnable.

For example, a war band of bandits will probably spread out and try to pincushion the wizard with bows as an opening move if possible, because it's typically known that wizards throw out fireballs and if your plan is to use advantage in numbers to force a surrender so you can steal from people, the man with the bombs is absolutely priority number one. On the other hand, a big hulking giant is probably going to be more concerned about the rogue trying to cut off his ankle tendons, because those same fireballs are a lot less of a concern for him than finding himself with a sudden foot deficit.

What I generally don't do is people (as in, reasonably humanoid stuff - giant monsters have a different calculus) just walking past a frontline taking all the AoEs without giving a crap because "hey, I have a lot of hp, I can take it" without some very good reason. Sure, on the meta level we know you can't drop a dude with a sword stab because HP are linear, but if they're not supposed to be meat points, but how much you can manage to avoid via skill, luck, and sheer narrative plot armor, before eating a telling blow, people are generally not going to risk seeing if their luck holds running past dudes with swords without pressing reason.

[LudicSavant]

Let's ignore stupid animals and genius dragons. What do bandits do? What do guards do? What do the elite orc warriors in a tribe do?

I'll take the last one.

The elite orc warriors of the Bloody Ear tribe have been fighting magical elves or competing tribes of orc barbarians for generations, and probably have a practical sense of what a barbarian is, what a wizard is, and generally functional battle plans for dealing with both (because the tribes that don't have functional battle plans for that no longer survive).

What precisely this battle plan is probably depends on the individual abilities of these elite orcs.

For example, if it's an Orc Red Fang of Shargaas (from Volo's), they'd probably try to set up an ambush of the Wizard, and if that didn't take them out, they'd use tools like Darkness to help the highly mobile orcs (thanks to their Aggressive trait) keep charging the Wizard without fear of OAs or the like, and prevent them from using sight-based magic (including Misty Step).

[Kane0]

Pertinent to my last session: mindflayers will ignore warforged because they have no tasties inside their buckets, and will instead mindblast human looking things in armor because human looking things in armor tend to be less smart than mages in funny hats.

[Sparky McDibben]

What do bandits do?

I'll take this one. There's basically three tactical paradigms that bandits find themselves in:

They're ambushing. In this case they do not issue a challenge to a small, heavily armed, and competent group of adventurers. They save that **** for merchants. They'll focus fire from behind cover, using "split move - and fire" tactics to remain out of sight. If they have anyone wood-savvy among them, they'll probably use some kind of poison, even basic poison, and will have prepared the ambush site with traps like spiked pits, caltrops, ball bearings, or even those dope-ass flaming logs from Spartacus. The first target will be the wizard, the second target the cleric, and then after that it's mop-up time. They won't kill anyone they don't need to, but they will charge a hefty ransom to let the PCs go (and that ransom is going to be hard to pay after the bandits rob the crap out of the PCs).

They're being ambushed. The adventurers tracked the bandits to their hideaway, and now the tables are turned! What clever tactics do the bandits use? How do they salvage the situation? They don't. They run, they surrender, or they die. Particularly suicidal or brave bandits will sneak into the PCs camp later to free their friends, but that's not really likely.

Anything else. The bandits will remain coordinated, fall back from anything that even looks like a fair fight, and evaluate profit and survival as the two highest-order priorities.

In all cases, the bandits will prioritize ranged weapons over melee, and will fall back if anyone tries to come within "stabbity-stab" range.

[Skrum]

I feel like players (like people who play DND) sometimes implicitly suppose that the NPC's of the world grew up in our RL world and there for aren't aware of things like magic or the capabilities of heroes. I understand why it happens, but a good DM will apply some logic to this and realize that most NPC's will be *very* aware of what a PC group can do. Not the specific group in front of them, but in the general sense.

IMO, it doesn't take 20 Int to know that some warriors are pretty resistant to conventional harm, enemy casters should be bonked on the head as often as possible (forcing concentration checks), most spells require sight to work, and that dropping someone to zero doesn't mean all that much and you should probably keep hitting them. Not to say that every NPC should be working with these kind of shrewd tactics, but anyone you want to portray as capable or experienced absolutely should. We just play this as a game and we all know these things; NPC's live in the world. Darn right they know how to fight or at least survive.

On this subject but not directly answering your question, I think a far underutilized occurrence is NPC's surrendering or retreating. Yes there's the classic BBEG teleporting away, but I mean bandits or something recognizing when they're outmatched and it's time to run or ask for mercy. My general "rule" is if an intelligent enemy loses 25% of their numbers without dropping a PC, they're going to run or surrender. An animal pack will flee if one of their number goes down. It speeds up combat and it feels far more true to NPC's being actual agents within the world and not just bags of HP.

So to answer your question, yes NPC's should be using tactics. If you're not convinced the "classic" tactics are proving to actually be intelligent, give your NPC's new tactics. Focus-fire. Have additional forces firing from cover on an unreachable cliff. Use false retreats to lead the PC's into traps (this is a favorite of mine - use sparingly). Retreat to go get reinforcements.

[LudicSavant]

I feel like players (like people who play DND) sometimes implicitly suppose that the NPC's of the world grew up in our RL world and there for aren't aware of things like magic or the capabilities of heroes. I understand why it happens, but a good DM will apply some logic to this and realize that most NPC's will be *very* aware of what a PC group can do. Not the specific group in front of them, but in the general sense.

IMO, it doesn't take 20 Int to know that some warriors are pretty resistant to conventional harm, enemy casters should be bonked on the head as often as possible (forcing concentration checks), most spells require sight to work, and that dropping someone to zero doesn't mean all that much and you should probably keep hitting them. Not to say that every NPC should be working with these kind of shrewd tactics, but anyone you want to portray as capable or experienced absolutely should. We just play this as a game and we all know these things; NPC's live in the world. Darn right they know how to fight or at least survive.

This. Well put.


I'll take this one. There's basically three tactical paradigms that bandits find themselves in:

They're ambushing. In this case they do not issue a challenge to a small, heavily armed, and competent group of adventurers. They save that **** for merchants. They'll focus fire from behind cover, using "split move - and fire" tactics to remain out of sight. If they have anyone wood-savvy among them, they'll probably use some kind of poison, even basic poison, and will have prepared the ambush site with traps like spiked pits, caltrops, ball bearings, or even those dope-ass flaming logs from Spartacus. The first target will be the wizard, the second target the cleric, and then after that it's mop-up time. They won't kill anyone they don't need to, but they will charge a hefty ransom to let the PCs go (and that ransom is going to be hard to pay after the bandits rob the crap out of the PCs).

They're being ambushed. The adventurers tracked the bandits to their hideaway, and now the tables are turned! What clever tactics do the bandits use? How do they salvage the situation? They don't. They run, they surrender, or they die. Particularly suicidal or brave bandits will sneak into the PCs camp later to free their friends, but that's not really likely.

Anything else. The bandits will remain coordinated, fall back from anything that even looks like a fair fight, and evaluate profit and survival as the two highest-order priorities.

In all cases, the bandits will prioritize ranged weapons over melee, and will fall back if anyone tries to come within "stabbity-stab" range.

I think you nailed it on the head! Very bandit-y. :smallsmile:

[Bovine Colonel]

Let's ignore stupid animals and genius dragons. What do bandits do? What do guards do? What do the elite orc warriors in a tribe do?

I'll take a swing at this one to round out the collection. Guard tactics depend on the thing they're guarding, how much they value it, and how defensible it is.

First of all, if they're guarding something not personally valuable to them against the PCs, they run. The merchant isn't paying them enough to sacrifice their lives for a caravan. Likewise, if they're foot-soldiers in an army, they're probably well aware that the PCs will kill them if they stand and fight unless they're able to rush all party members at once and prevent them from supporting each other.

If they're defending their homes and families but are at a tactical disadvantage (say a street patrol is attacked by the PCs), they sound the alarm and continue sounding the alarm while they fall back to an appropriate defensible building. Ideally this would be a castle or a city wall, but in a smaller settlement it might be a stone church or watchtower. If the fight is already inside a fortified building, they head for the next inner layer of defenses. Once they get inside they lock the door, bar the gates, do whatever they need to do to deny the PCs entry. They man the ramparts if the building has any, or at least post a guard behind every window to shoot bows or crossbows at the PCs outside. If they can spare the manpower, one or two guards will hold the door shut against the Barbarian's axe swings or whatever else the PCs are doing to force entry.

The guards can obviously tell that the Barbarian can't hurt them without first gaining entry into the building, so a sturdy door or gate should keep him out for at least a few rounds. They have plenty of cover against projectile weapons, so the only PCs that can immediately threaten them are the casters. They keep shooting at anyone who looks like they can cast some sort of spell or has demonstrated the ability to threaten the guards with spells. If several party members are unable to affect the outcome of the battle, or at least unable to fight at full effectiveness, then hopefully attrition and the threat of reinforcements will eventually force the PCs to leave.

If there's no defensible building close enough for them to run to, they'll split up and take cover around street corners or whatever else is available. They won't defeat the PCs by themselves this way, but they've already sounded the alarm so now they just need to survive while keeping the PCs' attention.

[Beni-Kujaku]

In general, just assume monsters between 6 and 16 Int will act like PCs do. Would a PC take out the big tough guy while being whittled down by the squishy support? Probably not, if they have a way around it. They will try to impede to big guy somehow (Web? Resilient Sphere?) and go for the backline, because the backline is generally easier to attack. In a fight, reducing the number of opponents quickly is key, and it's much easier to fight against 2 opponents for a minute, then 1 for 5 minutes, than to fight against 2 opponents for 5 minutes, and then 1 for a minute.

Basically what I go for in general:
- Golems, zombies, and other creatures with no intelligence of their own: only follow orders, or attack the closest thing, whatever it is.
- Animals and other creatures with 3 Int or less: Will try to attack one character, without discriminating. Will try to grab them and bring them away to eat them. Know to flee if they're too outmatched.
- 4-7 Int: Can use basic techniques like kiting, or hiding, can understand that its attacks don't work on somebody but do on somebody else. May fight to the death for a cause, but will otherwise flee if wounded.
- 8-11 Int: Most probably appear in groups, can prepare an ambush, can discriminate between easy targets and meat shields. Will probably try to gank on an enemy that becomes vulnerable (spellcaster in charging range, rogue becoming visible to attack...), and position themselves to get the least amount of attack of opportunity. Can estimate when they have a chance of getting away alive, and act accordingly.
- 12-15 Int: Good tactics, can buff themselves or their allies, know roughly what to expect of an enemy based on equipment alone, will prepare items and traps for an ambush, position themselves to flank or just out of range (archers in trees). Know how to use a surprise round, when to use Power Attack and summons.
- 16-19 Int: Basically know the rules of the game. Know about action economy, the range of most common spells, the good saves of most classes and the kind of attacks they will be most vulnerable to... and will use it to its advantage.
- 20+ Int: Almost supernaturally intelligent. If the monster had time to study its opponents, consider it knows most of their build. If not, it will still be able to cook complex strategies, cutting off their means of escape, trapping them in a disadvantageous position, targetting their weakness specifically. Will position themselves and use battlefield control to best split the party and take them out easily.

[Tawmis]

Full disclosure, I've never liked these arguments. It seems kind of ridiculous that a monster would ignore the armored warrior swinging the sword at its face because it "did the math" and realized the most efficient course of action is to tank some OAs and go after the robed guy in the back. But to each their own.
Do monsters only know to ignore "tanks" and target wizards or does their meta go beyond that?

Depends on the intelligence/wisdom of a monster. If it's a zombie, no. Zombie's just gonna randomly target someone in my game.
If it's an intelligent creature (goblin, orc, dragon, etc) - you can bet they will.
And not because the wizard does not have armor - but a wizard can generally deliver a hard hitting spell.
The creatures know, "Hey that is a wizard - look at his robes, and spell book - they can do fireball. Archers, target him. Warriors, cut through and try to take him down."
Same idea if a cleric, for example heals.
"Take down the holy one, or she/he will continue to heal who we are striking! Take them down and the enemy keeps bleeding!"

Intelligent monsters SHOULD be played intelligently.

[SpanielBear]

I think another thing, more a meta consideration, is to read your player’s tactical acumen and adjust to the point they’re having fun. The bandits acting clever and bandity is definitely correct from a verisimilitude stand point, and if the players like outsmarting clever opponents then that’s absolutely how I’d run it. If the tone of the campaign is more beer and pretzels, “let’s throw dice and enjoy tropes”, I’ll happily include stupid bandits who get in the PCs faces so the barbarian can pick up the little guy and use him as a club against his mates. And I’ll change the tactics up even further if I’m running a game for kids.

Not saying monsters/npcs shouldn’t be run cleverly. They absolutely can be, and should be for a lot of tables. But the expectations of the table and what the group finds fun is just as important to consider as “how smart is the average Owlbear?”

[Azuresun]

And for intelligent creatures, it may also depend on their objectives. The monsters do have objectives, right? They're not just robotic punching bags? And culture, and individual personality[1].

[1] sure, you might not give every goblin an individual personality. But it gives a lot of depth to give some people basic "he's a coward", "he's particularly clever", etc traits.

That, and combat is going to be a chaotic mess where you might not even realise how many enemies they are. No intelligent creature is going to ignore the skilled warrior 5ft away from them armed with a deadly sword because he's a "tank" who "only does 1d8+3 damage", and is going to have most of their attention focused on that enemy.

(Also interesting how many people seem to assume that spellcasters always dress in a way that makes it super obvious that they're spellcasters. Clearly, armies should employ some random people to dress as wizards and stand in the back, so that the enemy will kill themselves racing through a block of spearmen to take out the decoys.)

[stoutstien]

An additional wrinkle you can use as a DM is to give individual NPCs, which includes everything in the game that isn't directly controlled by a PC, is give each one a short personally trait that can be crossed referenced. A cunning bandit, a cowardly bandit, and a brash bandit will all have the same general MO in a given scenario but individually they might go about it in different ways.

[Glorthindel]

What I generally don't do is people (as in, reasonably humanoid stuff - giant monsters have a different calculus) just walking past a frontline taking all the AoEs without giving a crap because "hey, I have a lot of hp, I can take it" without some very good reason. Sure, on the meta level we know you can't drop a dude with a sword stab because HP are linear, but if they're not supposed to be meat points, but how much you can manage to avoid via skill, luck, and sheer narrative plot armor, before eating a telling blow, people are generally not going to risk seeing if their luck holds running past dudes with swords without pressing reason.

I think this is the core distinction that helps change the tactics theory into something useable at the table. Instead of running the raw numbers, treat it as generalities. Hit points are an abstraction, and your average monster/NPC shouldn't be played with a clear knowledge of how many hit points they and others have. To an average orc, that Fighter in front of him with a longsword should be considered an immediate and lethal threat - sure, the Orc actually has 20 hit points, and the Fighter can only do D8+4 on an AOO (these are entirely made-up-for-example numbers), so the Fighter cannot kill the Orc if he just rushes past him, but the Orc shouldn't know that. Sure, if the Orc is tough (a base lot of hit points), unwounded, and heavily armoured, he would be aware he has a good chance of being able to get past safely, but he isn't going to know its a guaranteed thing. Then it becomes a value consideration of whether its worthwhile risking being killed by the Fighter in order to make a dash on that spellcaster, and in most cases, it wont be (particularly if there are several orcs, they might be happy to let each other take the risk, and end up with no-one doing so)

[tokek]

Put me with the "Each monster should be different" crowd.

As DMs we are telling stories with our monsters more than running a reality simulator, so how the monsters behave should not break the suspension of disbelief but should be an interesting story.

Its usually more interesting for the players if sometimes the monsters play to their strength by trying to pound on the frontliners and sometimes they do the opposite and try to ambush the squishies. If you are running one or two combats per week for a lot of weeks the last thing you want to do is become too stale and predictable. That's not random of course, dumb beasts will not be too smart while highly intelligent NPCs will act according to their personality and knowledge.

[Venwraek]

I don't think intelligence has nearly as much to do with it as some are making it seem here. When hunting in a pack, wolves tend to pick out the weakest members of a prey group, going for young or elderly members who can't fight back properly or members that can be easily isolated from the group and taken out by numbers. It's not really a question of tactical genius, they have an intelligence score of three, but it's a basic survival tactic to not engage directly with the creature who can seriously injure you, and plenty of predatory animals behave this way. Target the squishy, ignore the tank is just basic survival. If things start going south, they aren't going to start focusing down the barbarian in their midst, they're going to turn tail and run.

Once you get into more warlike thought processes, where the point is to break the group as a whole while also surviving, is actually where I think the tanky martials do their best. A member of an orc warband probably won't get into one-on-one combat with a paladin and just turn and run after the sorcerer, but there should be someone going after the sorcerer in that scenario, because leaving that person alone to do what they want is stupid, and there's probably at least one person who isn't within five feet of this dude in plate mail, and how many people need to be fighting this guy at once, anyways? We don't have casters in real life, but archers and siege engines weren't ignored during wars because it was a good idea to try to run into the men with shields and spears in front of them, it was because those men physically cut off access to the ranged weaponry. Unfortunately, two or three people have a harder time doing this without significant terrain advantage to assist them.

Fighting an individual large creature is going to heavily weigh on that creature's personality and priorities. With that said, though, if you're going into a fight outnumbered, being able to thin the herd is important for swinging the odds in your favor.

I don't trust MMO style tank characters to perform that role, because MMOs don't treat enemies like creatures with thoughts. It's a mechanical process where the enemies mindlessly attack the target that has the most aggro, which is generated by that target being in their face and performing some action that grabs attention, but otherwise doesn't serve as much as an offensive threat. As soon as roleplay enters the picture, that stops working on a lot of enemies. Maybe honorable combatants might accept a one on one duel, or a particularly prideful opponent might refuse to fight a target that can't defend themselves martially. The tank doesn't get to decide that for them, though, which can lead to frustrating scenarios if the DM decides that targeting the tank just isn't in this enemy's best interests.

[JackPhoenix]

- Animals and other creatures with 3 Int or less: Will try to attack one character, without discriminating. Will try to grab them and bring them away to eat them. Know to flee if they're too outmatched.

Funny you say that, because most animals absolutely *do* discriminate what prey they'll attack. It's usually the smallest, slowest and weakest member of a pack... which, in D&D terms, would likely be the caster with lower physical ability scores than an armored warrior.

It seems you're making the same mistake whoever is responsible for that monsterknows thing does: Assuming ability score measuring "logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning" is the correct way to determine how tactically apt someone/thing is.


I think this is the core distinction that helps change the tactics theory into something useable at the table. Instead of running the raw numbers, treat it as generalities. Hit points are an abstraction, and your average monster/NPC shouldn't be played with a clear knowledge of how many hit points they and others have. To an average orc, that Fighter in front of him with a longsword should be considered an immediate and lethal threat - sure, the Orc actually has 20 hit points, and the Fighter can only do D8+4 on an AOO (these are entirely made-up-for-example numbers), so the Fighter cannot kill the Orc if he just rushes past him, but the Orc shouldn't know that. Sure, if the Orc is tough (a base lot of hit points), unwounded, and heavily armoured, he would be aware he has a good chance of being able to get past safely, but he isn't going to know its a guaranteed thing. Then it becomes a value consideration of whether its worthwhile risking being killed by the Fighter in order to make a dash on that spellcaster, and in most cases, it wont be (particularly if there are several orcs, they might be happy to let each other take the risk, and end up with no-one doing so)

Thing is, the orc probably got in a lot of fights in his life, and would know from experience he can defend himself reasonably well from a guy with a longsword (i.e. has enough HP to not go down in one shot). Which is absolutely true if the guy with a longsword doesn't have something else going for him, and the orc is fresh to fight. The orc *does* have a good reason to be confident he can focus on a greater threat... assuming that's what orcs do. I can easily see orcs ignoring the spellcaster because the bigger, armored warrior makes for more more impressive opponent and better bragging rights than the scrawny guy cowering in the back (unless proved otherwise).


That, and combat is going to be a chaotic mess where you might not even realise how many enemies they are. No intelligent creature is going to ignore the skilled warrior 5ft away from them armed with a deadly sword because he's a "tank" who "only does 1d8+3 damage", and is going to have most of their attention focused on that enemy.

Semi-related: I play Vermintide 2, which is a horde shooter/slasher FPS. There are various enemies, from numerous, but relatively weak and fragile hordes, tough, hard-hitting elites and specials, which do all sorts of things, like throwing poison gas grenades that reduce visibility and cause damage, machine gunners that force players to take cover while they are shooting, sorcerers who can summon large tornadoes that can throw the players in the air (and cause significant unblockable damage), and various other enemies that disable players. You bet you often ignore an elite in your face even while surrounded by horde to shoot a special, because the horde can take you down, but an ill-timed tornado can wipe out the entire team. Sure, you give yourself some space first if you can, but there *are* priorities even in the chaotic mess.

[Burley]

An additional wrinkle you can use as a DM is to give individual NPCs, which includes everything in the game that isn't directly controlled by a PC, is give each one a short personally trait that can be crossed referenced. A cunning bandit, a cowardly bandit, and a brash bandit will all have the same general MO in a given scenario but individually they might go about it in different ways.

That's such a good idea. I usually keep a mental note of a leader's goals (so they may order their mooks to shift targets), but I guess that necessitates having a leader. Owlbears don't have leaders; they attack what's in front of them. But, an Owlbear could have been badly burned once and be afraid of fire magic, or become enraged when its mate is damaged and charge the [ranger]. Its a quick thing to just assign a simple trait and inform their tactics from there.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why is that ridiculous? Pushing past a defensive line to get to an objective is a thing people do in real life. +many. For example, bypassing strong points was a fundamental tactic of the storm trooper infantry tactics Rommel and others developed on the Western Front in WW I. (See his book "Infantry Attacks!" (Infanterie greift an). As an aside, I was educated in a boat load of TTPs from the US Army that I won't include, the summary is "armor goes deep and lets the follow on forces deal with certain objectives".)

"Doing the math" isn't some esoteric idea that exists only in games. Threat assessment and prioritization is just like... basic tactics. Yep. METT-T is a mental process.

This. "Monsters" are not a monolith, and treating them like one is a mistake.
{snip} There are as many different tactical considerations as there are monsters. There is no single "meta." This answers the title question. :smallsmile:

Because it's totally unrealistic, The appeal to 'realism' is a massively subjective criterion.
There is certainly a "single meta" when it comes to "ignore the frontline, go after casters". Not really. Intelligent monsters who are aware of spell casting as a thing will likely think that way, but a shark underwater? Not so much. First off, are you playing in a high, middle or low magic world? How prevalent magic is informs how broadly understood magic skills and abilities are. If you look at the 5e DMG you can see that even the game's authors acknowledge that there are high, mid, and low magic worlds.

I like old school, minus a focus on unarmored foes:
Swarm the PCs if you have the numbers. Try to separate them if possible.
Always try to kill spellcasters first
Protect your spellcasters. For intelligent monsters (hobgoblins, berserkers, etc, yeah)

Certainly the combination of no armor and spellcaster should definitely be a priority target ... it's still more often than not true that these casters are very focused on offense and have weak defenses. And it allows a bit of tactical surprise when that fellow in robes with a staff ends up being a monk. :smallbiggrin:

But something like a ghoul, as one example, will probably know to grab the 'weaker' meat away from the party as soon as they can. They're not smart but hunting and killing people is all they know. Compared to me, who's barely ever been in a fight, they're basically triple PHDs on the topic of how to hunt and kill prey. And this is still a very stupid ghoul! For fully sapient enemies like hobgoblins or orcs, good tactics becomes even more compulsory. Orcs live for this stuff. Of course they'll know to tie down the less-armored person in melee. Cut down the weak, break their morale! Yeah, and morale checks need to be folded back into the game.

Dragon uses Wing Attack as a Legendary action {snip} There's nothing "unrealistic" about that. It's just dragon tactics 101. It doesn't even require a smart dragon. Just a dragon who can identify "hey, that looks like a squishy dangerous guy, I think I'll eat him first. Also, no reason to just keep standing next to this slow axe guy." Yep.

I'll take this one. There's basically three tactical paradigms that bandits find themselves in:

They're ambushing. Or they leave adventurers alone, and wait for the merchants. But that's the thing: how can you be sure that you are dealing with these "adventurers" at all? Maybe it's a lady and her retinue? (Female sorcerer, well dressed, noble background, battle master, rogue (lady in waiting dressed in traveling clothes, druid (old guy, also in robes, leather armor may or may not be apparent under them robes).

They're being ambushed. Most bandits, if ambushed, do the old "live to fight another day".

Anything else. The bandits will remain coordinated, fall back from anything that even looks like a fair fight, and evaluate profit and survival as the two highest-order priorities.
Yes indeed, but if they are in their lair they fight like cornered rats.

Funny you say that, because most animals absolutely *do* discriminate what prey they'll attack. It's usually the smallest, slowest and weakest member of a pack... which, in D&D terms, would likely be the caster with lower physical ability scores than an armored warrior.

It seems you're making the same mistake whoever is responsible for that monsterknows thing does: Assuming ability score measuring "logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning" is the correct way to determine how tactically apt someone/thing is. +1

[Unoriginal]

I think OP is conflating several different things:

1) the "NPCs will generally target in priority the targets they think they'll have an easier time hurting" tactical consideration.

2) the "martials don't deal enough damage so NPCs will ignore them" caster supremacy nonsense.

3) the "all NPCs are unfeeling automatons who will fight the PCs to the death until they're destroyed" school of handling combat.

I'll say, as most people before me, that IMO all NPCs will do tactical assessments and come to a conclusion depending on their goals and capacities, on the current context, and on what they can perceive and deduct of the PCs.

Attacking a squishy backliner is something most NPCs who can think tactically will want to do, BUT they're not going to ignore the two guys with greatswords just to rush the backline unless there are other factors in play that makes the enemy think getting whacked by big swords is somehow worth it.

Similarly, a caster NPC with a spell that can be dodged by agile people is likely going to favor using it on big clumsy oafs, and would target the party's rogue with said séell only if they don't see any other option. Or if there are other factors that make the caster want to abandon tactical considerations (ex: the Rogue just killed the caster's brother, so the caster is just lashing out with what in their mind is their most powerful spell, even if it has little chance to hurt this particular target).

[Keravath]

Inspired by all the times I see "then the monster will ignore you and go after the squishy target in the back" or "then you'll make yourself an obvious target for the monsters to attack".

Generally you see these comments when people are talking about tanks or tough defender-type characters, or if someone is shirking their AC or other defenses.

Full disclosure, I've never liked these arguments. It seems kind of ridiculous that a monster would ignore the armored warrior swinging the sword at its face because it "did the math" and realized the most efficient course of action is to tank some OAs and go after the robed guy in the back. But to each their own.

However, it does make me think... what is the Meta that the monsters operate under?

PCs know not to split up their efforts but to focus fire, and that a single hit isn't going to kill them or their target, and that this monster is a boss and that one is a mook, etc.

What do monsters know? It seems the only thing monsters know is that "lightly armored person is easy prey" and "big dumb brute is inefficient target". Is that all they should know? Or would know? Do they know this because the wizard just hit them with a spell and they should take out the spellcaster now? Or because it's just a known thing in the world? If combats only last 2-3 rounds, is all of this meta virtually useless because it's all over so soon?

Do monsters know that they can't take hostages? Or that PCs will walk through damaging hazards if they feel they can take the damage? Do monsters know about cover and line of sight to use that against ranged enemies and casters?

Do monsters only know to ignore "tanks" and target wizards or does their meta go beyond that?

Monsters know as much as the DM thinks they do. Usually, the DM uses the intelligence and wisdom stats along with species characteristics (like wolves etc would tend to use pack tactics - similar to kobolds) and likely NPC experiences (are these intelligent monsters likely to have encountered adventurers and spell casting previously) to decide what the monsters will do - but that will vary with every DM.

Most good DMs will not metagame the monster decisions. Less experienced DMs or those that don't care, might.

Some examples - intelligent opponents will likely have experience with magic and may prioritize spell casters.

Goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds etc all have shamans and other spellcasters in their societies. They would know the power of these capabilities and might well decide to attack a spell caster over a fighter swinging a sword in front of them.

Intelligent opponents are very likely to notice yo-yo healing. If they "kill" a person and they get back up the next round then they become far more likely to make sure that they stay dead the next time (though a DM needs to let the players know that this is a common situation in the game world so that they can adjust tactics accordingly - some players assume that when a monster knocks out a PC they will just move on to the next target).

Most beasts will tend to attack the closest target. They don't usually have the cognitive ability to assess the relative threat or relative difficulty of an opponent with a sword right in front of them and the spellcaster in a robe at the back - they will likely ignore the spellcaster even after they start casting spells since beasts don't usually have the cognitive ability to make the connection.

On the other hand, an intelligent opponent with no previous experience with spell casting could well see a creature in the back wave their hands and see fire shoot at one of their friends. They could well decide that the flame shooting opponent is a bigger threat than the guy with a sword.

---

TL;DR In most games I have played in or run, meta knowledge plays no role in the decisions of NPC or monsters on who to attack - the NPC intelligence/wisdom and DM assessment of what they are likely to know already guides the choices of NPCs/monsters in deciding who to attack. Meta knowledge isn't relevant.

[Dr.Samurai]

Thanks all for commenting. I want to say that I think we're mixing up "tactics" with "meta". I may not be making my point or ask clearly enough, but I am wondering about what NPCs know about the world and "game mechanics" (for lack of a better term) and how does that inform their decisions in combat. I will highlight some replies that I think touch on what I'm asking:


Used to be armor was a pretty reliable indicator in universe if something was hard to hit. In WotC D&D it isn't, that should be known in-universe IMO.
Thank you Tanarii, this is speaking to what I'm asking. As some of you know I've complained before about how easy it is in this edition to be a spellcaster in medium armor, even with Extra Attack. How does this play into the NPC meta, or the idea that "weaker" prey gets targeted almost exclusively? If you have a party with a War Cleric, a Swords Bard, a Monk, and an Unarmored Barbarian, who is what now?

Is the online meta only applicable if the bard has cast a spell? Can it be any spell? If the Bard lands a Vicious Mockery, is the Orc warrior going to say "oh crap, that guy's got spells, need to ignore this barbarian and monk and go for the kill"?

You can make an argument that a warrior in the face is more dangerous than a spellcaster in 5e. But that's only true for PCs IMO, and is largely due to spellcasters needing to conserve resources for a full adventuring day.
Would you mind elaborating on this a little, because I think an error I may be making is thinking that enemy NPCs have experience fighting PCs, which is different from experience fighting/killing other NPCs. PCs are extraordinary.

So the question is... how dangerous are NPC spellcasters in the world and how much do enemy NPCs know that to look for and target the party spellcaster? And as you allude to, in a fight where the players are conserving resources, does the meta hold? And in a nova, does the meta even have a chance to be implemented?

Certainly the combination of no armor and spellcaster should definitely be a priority target ... it's still more often than not true that these casters are very focused on offense and have weak defenses.
I understand being a priority target. I don't understand "I will shrug off this greataxe attack and invite another one as I move past the barbarian and give him my back, because I'm just a sack of HPs and I think I can kill this other weaker sack of HPs while this barbarian is swinging at me, and now that I've killed the wizard at the cost of eating barbarian attacks for a few turns, I have the chance to take down the barbarian I haven't even hit once..."

It seems you're mistaking general assumptions for a script that must always be followed no matter the circumstances. That's not how things work. Of course people are making general statements on a forum, because they can't offer an insight into specific circumstances of every single encounter the character will face in the campaign.

Generally, you take out the biggest threat first, if you can. Generally, spellcasters are more dangerous than non-casters. Generally, you'll need to balance defense and offence, because focusing too much on one at the expanse of other will get you ignored as tough, but not threatening, or focused on as a glass cannon that's too dangerous to let live for long. Generally, if you want enemies to attack you instead of the others, you'll need to give them a reason to. That's always true, and that's why people keep mentioning it again and again.
I like the switch from "Generally..." to "That's always true, and that's why people keep mentioning it again and again."

But let's focus on something else you said: "Generally, if you want enemies to attack you instead of others, you'll need to give them a reason to."

For me, and plenty of other people, and probably anyone that actually fights as a hobby or career, someone swinging an axe at your face IS a reason to attack them. You don't need anything else than that. That is a very compelling, very obvious NARRATIVE reason to attack back and focus your energy on that person. The only reason it is not enough for you and the online forum meta, is because this is a game with rules/mechanics like HPs and OAs that allow you to do the math and say "the wizard can fubar this fight for us, I have this many HPs, the fighter only gets a single attack on an OA, I'm going to completely ignore them and go for the wizard". My question is... what does this look and sound like from the enemy NPC perspective, because obviously the NPC doesn't know the rules and isn't metagaming. So what is their thinking, and what else do they "know/not-know" about the rules that shape the world?

I literally just gave you an example of a specific monster tactic:
I literally said "ignore dragons" in response. Most enemies don't have fly speeds, massive hit points, legendary actions, etc. I'm talking about firefights between the PCs and other intelligent (average) humanoid warriors/casters. I want to understand how strong (or feeble) this notion is of "walk past the front line" and also what other truisms the NPCs live and die by.


What I generally don't do is people (as in, reasonably humanoid stuff - giant monsters have a different calculus) just walking past a frontline taking all the AoEs without giving a crap because "hey, I have a lot of hp, I can take it" without some very good reason. Sure, on the meta level we know you can't drop a dude with a sword stab because HP are linear, but if they're not supposed to be meat points, but how much you can manage to avoid via skill, luck, and sheer narrative plot armor, before eating a telling blow, people are generally not going to risk seeing if their luck holds running past dudes with swords without pressing reason.
This is exactly on point. It seems that "ignore the frontline" is video game logic where the NPC would have to, in-world, understand what HPs are and how combat rules work. I'm literally talking about "tanks need something, otherwise enemies will ignore them". So the enemy ignores the tank and moves past them, eating an OA. This is very video-gamey.

The elite orc warriors of the Bloody Ear tribe have been fighting magical elves or competing tribes of orc barbarians for generations, and probably have a practical sense of what a barbarian is, what a wizard is, and generally functional battle plans for dealing with both (because the tribes that don't have functional battle plans for that no longer survive).

What precisely this battle plan is probably depends on the individual abilities of these elite orcs.

For example, if it's an Orc Red Fang of Shargaas (from Volo's), they'd probably try to set up an ambush of the Wizard, and if that didn't take them out, they'd use tools like Darkness to help the highly mobile orcs (thanks to their Aggressive trait) keep charging the Wizard without fear of OAs or the like, and prevent them from using sight-based magic (including Misty Step).
Thank you, this is cool. So in this case the NPC meta includes knowledge of line of sight and how it interacts with some spellcasting. They are aware of this and implement it in their tactics as needed.

They're ambushing. In this case they do not issue a challenge to a small, heavily armed, and competent group of adventurers. They save that **** for merchants. They'll focus fire from behind cover, using "split move - and fire" tactics to remain out of sight. If they have anyone wood-savvy among them, they'll probably use some kind of poison, even basic poison, and will have prepared the ambush site with traps like spiked pits, caltrops, ball bearings, or even those dope-ass flaming logs from Spartacus. The first target will be the wizard, the second target the cleric, and then after that it's mop-up time. They won't kill anyone they don't need to, but they will charge a hefty ransom to let the PCs go (and that ransom is going to be hard to pay after the bandits rob the crap out of the PCs).

They're being ambushed. The adventurers tracked the bandits to their hideaway, and now the tables are turned! What clever tactics do the bandits use? How do they salvage the situation? They don't. They run, they surrender, or they die. Particularly suicidal or brave bandits will sneak into the PCs camp later to free their friends, but that's not really likely.

Anything else. The bandits will remain coordinated, fall back from anything that even looks like a fair fight, and evaluate profit and survival as the two highest-order priorities.

In all cases, the bandits will prioritize ranged weapons over melee, and will fall back if anyone tries to come within "stabbity-stab" range.
Also cool. The meta here seems to be pretty straightforward... engaging the enemy directly is bad. It makes sense when you're ambushing to target PCs as you laid out as well, especially from a distance.

I feel like players (like people who play DND) sometimes implicitly suppose that the NPC's of the world grew up in our RL world and there for aren't aware of things like magic or the capabilities of heroes. I understand why it happens, but a good DM will apply some logic to this and realize that most NPC's will be *very* aware of what a PC group can do. Not the specific group in front of them, but in the general sense.

IMO, it doesn't take 20 Int to know that some warriors are pretty resistant to conventional harm, enemy casters should be bonked on the head as often as possible (forcing concentration checks), most spells require sight to work, and that dropping someone to zero doesn't mean all that much and you should probably keep hitting them. Not to say that every NPC should be working with these kind of shrewd tactics, but anyone you want to portray as capable or experienced absolutely should. We just play this as a game and we all know these things; NPC's live in the world. Darn right they know how to fight or at least survive.
This is also speaking to the question I'm asking. I think it depends on what a "PC group" is. Are there many people in the world like the PCs? Have these particular bandits fought others like the PCs before? Or have they just waylaid merchants and traveling families and even survived some skirmishes with lawmen? What do the NPCs know is exactly the question. In Ludic's example, the orcs know about line of sight because they have experience fighting elven mages, and maybe have their own shamans. Do bandits know that line of sight is integral to targeting people with magic? Does the thug think that if he keeps the fighter between him and the wizard, the wizard will have a harder time targeting him, or is he aware that it won't have an impact for certain spells?

I'm not suggesting everyone has to be a genius, and I'm not ignorant of what tactics are. I'm wondering what people believe the NPCs of the world know specifically when it comes to fighting the PCs.

Sorry, I can't get to each response at the moment but want to highlight another reply that speaks to what I'm getting at:


I think this is the core distinction that helps change the tactics theory into something useable at the table. Instead of running the raw numbers, treat it as generalities. Hit points are an abstraction, and your average monster/NPC shouldn't be played with a clear knowledge of how many hit points they and others have. To an average orc, that Fighter in front of him with a longsword should be considered an immediate and lethal threat - sure, the Orc actually has 20 hit points, and the Fighter can only do D8+4 on an AOO (these are entirely made-up-for-example numbers), so the Fighter cannot kill the Orc if he just rushes past him, but the Orc shouldn't know that. Sure, if the Orc is tough (a base lot of hit points), unwounded, and heavily armoured, he would be aware he has a good chance of being able to get past safely, but he isn't going to know its a guaranteed thing. Then it becomes a value consideration of whether its worthwhile risking being killed by the Fighter in order to make a dash on that spellcaster, and in most cases, it wont be (particularly if there are several orcs, they might be happy to let each other take the risk, and end up with no-one doing so)

[Sparky McDibben]

I think you nailed it on the head! Very bandit-y. :smallsmile:

Thanks!


I'll take a swing at this one to round out the collection.

Well put. Guards are not mooks queueing up to run into the meat grinder of the barbarian's axe.


Or they leave adventurers alone, and wait for the merchants. But that's the thing: how can you be sure that you are dealing with these "adventurers" at all? Maybe it's a lady and her retinue? (Female sorcerer, well dressed, noble background, battle master, rogue (lady in waiting dressed in traveling clothes, druid (old guy, also in robes, leather armor may or may not be apparent under them robes).

I generally use bandits as encounters on the road, triggered off a random adventure die. So I start by assuming that something is leading these poor dumb schmucks to engage with the party. That's probably a different topic. I do like your example, though! Reminds me of a Firefly episode: "If your hand touches steel, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you." :smallsmile:


Yes indeed, but if they are in their lair they fight like cornered rats.

I mean, maybe! But I use Morale checks, so it's not guaranteed. And even then I think their goal is to escape with some loot, rather than die fighting.

[Catullus64]

I agree with the general sentiment of the OP, that people in and out of game tend to assume a lot about monster knowledge and ability to make rational decisions in combat. That said, some observations.

1. People talk a lot about focusing on casters and trying to bypass fighters, as if the difference between the two is readily visible in D&D-land. But there are casters in heavy armor and fighters in nothing but robes; the enemy doesn't know who the magical uber-threats are until they actually start casting, by which point it's often too late.

2. Possessing the ability to reason tactically and being able to execute sophisticated tactics in a fight are meaningfully different things. Monsters that possess the ability to discern that a wizard is a bigger threat than the fighter may not have the nerve to expose themselves to the fighter's opportunity attacks to go for the wizard.

3. Which brings me to one of my stated goals when deciding on monster tactics: any creature of humanoid-adjacent size and proportions should behave as though one blow could immediately kill them or put them out of the fight. This is obviously a tricky fiction to maintain in D&D, where it's usually untrue of monsters above CR 1 or so, but the monsters are not aware of the "narrative cushion" of survival provided by HP totals. Consistently ignoring the warrior-types to focus on the spellcasters relies on taking the reality of HP-damage ratios and importing them directly into the fiction of the game, which is unappealing to me. Interestingly, I've found a method that actually plays into this quite well. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636046-My-Terrible-Experiment)

[Segev]

I am unsure why it is a "kamikaze move" to ignore the big guy in armor while you and your buddies go after the guy in the blue robes who can wipe out half your number with a single spell, but is a lot easier to take down.

[Azuresun]

Funny you say that, because most animals absolutely *do* discriminate what prey they'll attack. It's usually the smallest, slowest and weakest member of a pack... which, in D&D terms, would likely be the caster with lower physical ability scores than an armored warrior.

Assuming the wizard didn't tank their CON score to a below-average level, why do they look unhealthy or weak? Especially if they're wearing clothes that don't make their size or physique super obvious.



Semi-related: I play Vermintide 2, which is a horde shooter/slasher FPS. There are various enemies, from numerous, but relatively weak and fragile hordes, tough, hard-hitting elites and specials, which do all sorts of things, like throwing poison gas grenades that reduce visibility and cause damage, machine gunners that force players to take cover while they are shooting, sorcerers who can summon large tornadoes that can throw the players in the air (and cause significant unblockable damage), and various other enemies that disable players. You bet you often ignore an elite in your face even while surrounded by horde to shoot a special, because the horde can take you down, but an ill-timed tornado can wipe out the entire team. Sure, you give yourself some space first if you can, but there *are* priorities even in the chaotic mess.

And that's a video game where if you get murdered by walking past all the dangerous ratfolk with swords, you just reload and try again. NPC's want to survive, and that generally means "don't drop your defences against guys with deadly weapons who are standing right next to you".



1. People talk a lot about focusing on casters and trying to bypass fighters, as if the difference between the two is readily visible in D&D-land. But there are casters in heavy armor and fighters in nothing but robes; the enemy doesn't know who the magical uber-threats are until they actually start casting, by which point it's often too late.

I do find myself curious about how many NPC's would run blindly past the fighter to attack the unarmed, unarmoured character who doesn't have bulging muscles....if the DM knew they were a monk instead of a spellcaster.

[Bobthewizard]

To the OP, it depends on the monsters. In the games I DM, set in Eberron, the warforged juggernaut construct just charges the paladin and fighter, ignoring the spellcasters completely. Mournland monstrosities behave the same, attacking the nearest enemy.

The intelligent humanoids, however, definitely target the obvious cleric first and the wizard second. Everyone in Eberron knows magic is dangerous and that you can't win a fight if the other side's healer is still up. I don't feel like this is Meta so much as NPCs understanding the dangers of the world they live in. The players know this and adjust their tactics accordingly.

And then the flying warforged assassins that attacked the airship ignored the party altogether and focused on taking out the pilot and throwing civilians overboard, even taking opportunity attacks to get past the party to the easier prey.

NPCs aren't tactically optimal in every fight, but they know what world they live in and the relative threats in that world.

[LudicSavant]

This is very video-gamey.

This description doesn't apply to any of the examples forum posters have given you of frontlines being bypassed in this thread. It doesn't apply to the bandits, or the elite orcs, or the guards, or the World War 1 soldier tactics (which are not from a videogame, or a tabletop game, they're from real life!)

[Azuresun]

The intelligent humanoids, however, definitely target the obvious cleric first and the wizard second. Everyone in Eberron knows magic is dangerous and that you can't win a fight if the other side's healer is still up. I don't feel like this is Meta so much as NPCs understanding the dangers of the world they live in. The players know this and adjust their tactics accordingly.


Before they start spellcasting, what makes someone "obviously" a cleric? Vs say, a war cleric with a sword and armour, or a superstitious fighter with a holy symbol?

Seems to me that disguise would become very important if every NPC in the world has a hate-on for people who wear robes!

[Willowhelm]

The meta for each group of npcs is different.

The meta for games changes as people try new tactics and learn how others are behaving. It’s accelerated by online discussion and guides and comparisons and high tier competition. Before the internet this was a much slower evolution and game changing (literally - rules had to be changed) tactics came out of nowhere. What are the communication channels like in your campaign world?

Your npc meta is based on your world and your npcs experiences. Some may have experience with cavalry charges, some with riding flying mounts, others with extreme long range weapons, others with charges and pitched battles, others with duelling etc etc

Because they don’t have the internet, they don’t have a single optimal meta. Nobody is providing them with the latest build guide and tactics. (Unless in your world they are…)

They might have knowledge of your party and your party’s specific tactics. Or they might only know how to hunt game birds in the forest where they live.

There is no single meta.

In your world magic users might be a known entity. They may specifically have tactics to deal with them due to the disastrous battle 10 years previously. Or they might never have seen magic before.

They may have faced people in plate and know how to deal with them (prone, stab through gaps) or this could be the first time they’ve seen armor like that and they’re astounded their claws do nothing and have no idea how to cope. Maybe they have a legendary monster in their myths and this is it, come to life.

There is no single meta.

[Tanarii]

Thanks all for commenting. I want to say that I think we're mixing up "tactics" with "meta".I was trying to focus on meta, and even so my responses did somewhat. :smallamused:


Thank you Tanarii, this is speaking to what I'm asking. As some of you know I've complained before about how easy it is in this edition to be a spellcaster in medium armor, even with Extra Attack. How does this play into the NPC meta, or the idea that "weaker" prey gets targeted almost exclusively? If you have a party with a War Cleric, a Swords Bard, a Monk, and an Unarmored Barbarian, who is what now?Absolutely a valid question. My personal assumption is that anyone fighting unarmored with high AC has *something* that makes their high AC immediately visible, if not before the battle certainly to anything observing it get attacked for the first time


Is the online meta only applicable if the bard has cast a spell? Can it be any spell? If the Bard lands a Vicious Mockery, is the Orc warrior going to say "oh crap, that guy's got spells, need to ignore this barbarian and monk and go for the kill"?Yes, I think it should, and IMC it does. Or at least, it'll bump them up the priority list, if they can't identify the kind of spell. Players do exactly the same for the same reasons.


Would you mind elaborating on this a little, because I think an error I may be making is thinking that enemy NPCs have experience fighting PCs, which is different from experience fighting/killing other NPCs. PCs are extraordinary.Sure. My assumption is that enemies do not have experience fighting PCs, and since it's only the case with PCs who have to husband spells across an adventuring day that spellcasters are NOT generally very much more powerful and dangerous than non-spellcasters, they should act accordingly. And even for PCs, if they get a 5MWD spellcasters can start to dominate.

Also please note here is where I mixed up tactics and meta. I referenced someone being in your face. Taking an OA should always be something of a deterrent. For this meta, generally speaking I'm assuming that the monsters (which include NPCs) have the capability to bypass non-squishies to get to caster squishies, without taking an OA. They may consider taking an OA if they think they are that tough and it looks important enough.


So the question is... how dangerous are NPC spellcasters in the world and how much do enemy NPCs know that to look for and target the party spellcaster? And as you allude to, in a fight where the players are conserving resources, does the meta hold? And in a nova, does the meta even have a chance to be implemented?NPC and Monster spell casters are very dangerous, and all intelligent monsters and NPCs should know that and act accordingly. Players shouldn't be treated as if they're going to husband resources, with monsters and NPcs lowering the threat priority of spellcasters.


I understand being a priority target. I don't understand "I will shrug off this greataxe attack and invite another one as I move past the barbarian and give him my back, because I'm just a sack of HPs and I think I can kill this other weaker sack of HPs while this barbarian is swinging at me, and now that I've killed the wizard at the cost of eating barbarian attacks for a few turns, I have the chance to take down the barbarian I haven't even hit once..."Monsters will know if they are that tough or skills, if they are a sack of hit points, and act accordingly. They may not know if their HPs come from luck tho. :smallamused:

But yes, I really wasn't thinking of provoking OAs.

My general tactical assumptions are:
Monsters/NPCs outnumber the PCs, or at least the "non-squishies"
PCs can somewhat but not completely bottleneck a battlefield, even counting threatening space.
The PC "front line" is thus a somewhat ethereal thing.
This the "back line" can be attacked without it being a huge tactically stupid flaw on the part of the monsters.

If you regularly run groups of enemies less than the "non-squishies", the meta of "target the visibly low defense spellcasters first (unspoken: if you can reasonably do so)" may come into play far less often.



(Also interesting how many people seem to assume that spellcasters always dress in a way that makes it super obvious that they're spellcasters. Clearly, armies should employ some random people to dress as wizards and stand in the back, so that the enemy will kill themselves racing through a block of spearmen to take out the decoys.)
I mean, spellcasters are visible because they cast spells.

Furthermore, I assume and consider it a very reasonable assumption that any pretty high AC or low AC character or creature is doing something visible, at least in combat, to establish that AC. Same with hit points. At least in general terms. DM inventiveness may be needed when describing creatures to players. :smallamused:

[Xervous]

Dredging from my experiences in various PvP games the topic of meta heavily touches upon expectations, available information, and the ability to parse all that out.

Let us consider bandits encountering a party. We’ll first look at the armored warrior bearing symbols of the commonly known justice god.

Available: equipped for melee with backup ranged, wearing plate armor

Expected: could be a paladin or cleric but not yet confirmed

Parse: until proven to be a cleric, treat as a hardened melee combatant

When this warrior casts spirit guardians and wades into melee the bandits will fully react to the cleric. Up until that or a similar point they will be reacting as to a melee unit, with whatever hedging they can fit in against the possibility of a cleric.

Now a sage looking sort in cloth with a well worn staff. Wizards and monks (and bards and etc) are equally well known. Just using Wizard as catch all for simplicity.

Available: sage is currently at a distance, cloth offers no protection.

Expected: probably a wizard, unlikely but possibly a monk

Parse: cloth means easy target. Risk of not attacking wizard first greatly outweighs downside of attacking an out of position Monk.

The bandits open fire on the sage and miss a lot of shots. After a certain point they have seen no magical protection to explain the discrepancy and rightly come to the conclusion that it’s a monk type.

Now an armored warrior on a mount, except they’re a good three hundred feet away from the rest of their party.

Available: highly durable target, no other ideal targets

Expected: target is isolated and exposed, risk of return fire from the rest of the opposition is low.

Parse: shoot at the rider for minimal damage, because taking 0 damage to inflict a little is better here than risking some to deal more damage.


When the party doesn’t present any obvious targets, it breaks down to positioning and observed performance. Bandit McBanditface doesn’t know that cowled assailant 1 is a cleric, or that cowled assailant 2 is a fighter. He just knows that 2 was overextended and that’s why the bandits mobbed him. And now he knows 1 can heal, so they need to confirm kills or get the healer down - whichever seems easier at the time.

[ender241]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I think part of what could be going on is a misconception related to the context of referenced forum discussions. I don't know what specifically you're referring to but often when people discuss NPC intelligence and tactics it's in the context of building an effective character. And people usually optimize with the assumption that they will face intelligent NPCs. It's easy to build a tank to be effective against really dumb enemies - just max con/dex and other defensive capabilities and stand there. Likewise, you can build a glass cannon and be highly effective against dumb enemies if you have a tank in your party.

But you really want to be effective in all (or at least most) encounters. So if you're a tank, you want to be able to make it harder for smart enemies to ignore you. So you focus on the harder to deal with situations and build around that, rather than focusing on the easy scenarios. So that's what people talk about on forums like this.

[LudicSavant]

Let us consider bandits encountering a party. We’ll first look at the armored warrior bearing symbols of the commonly known justice god.

Available: equipped for melee with backup ranged, wearing plate armor

Expected: could be a paladin or cleric but not yet confirmed

Parse: until proven to be a cleric, treat as a hardened melee combatant

When this warrior casts spirit guardians and wades into melee the bandits will fully react to the cleric. Up until that or a similar point they will be reacting as to a melee unit, with whatever hedging they can fit in against the possibility of a cleric.

Now a sage looking sort in cloth with a well worn staff. Wizards and monks (and bards and etc) are equally well known. Just using Wizard as catch all for simplicity.

Available: sage is currently at a distance, cloth offers no protection.

Expected: probably a wizard, unlikely but possibly a monk

Parse: cloth means easy target. Risk of not attacking wizard first greatly outweighs downside of attacking an out of position Monk.

The bandits open fire on the sage and miss a lot of shots. After a certain point they have seen no magical protection to explain the discrepancy and rightly come to the conclusion that it’s a monk type.

Now an armored warrior on a mount, except they’re a good three hundred feet away from the rest of their party.

Available: highly durable target, no other ideal targets

Expected: target is isolated and exposed, risk of return fire from the rest of the opposition is low.

Parse: shoot at the rider for minimal damage, because taking 0 damage to inflict a little is better here than risking some to deal more damage.


When the party doesn’t present any obvious targets, it breaks down to positioning and observed performance. Bandit McBanditface doesn’t know that cowled assailant 1 is a cleric, or that cowled assailant 2 is a fighter. He just knows that 2 was overextended and that’s why the bandits mobbed him. And now he knows 1 can heal, so they need to confirm kills or get the healer down - whichever seems easier at the time.

This guy gets it.

There are many cues that people can take in order to determine what kind of competition they're up against. Behavior, clothes, equipment, stance, physique, positioning, even context clues from the behavior/etc of other people around them. Not to mention the possibility that your Big Damn Heroes have a reputation and are just straight up recognized.

Even in a situation where a foe can't tell for certain, they can often narrow their expectations and hedge their bets, in a manner similar to Xervous's simplified example. And as the battle progresses they will get more and more information to narrow the possibilities they anticipate.

[Dr.Samurai]

This answers the title question. :smallsmile:
Sure, and then other threads will pop up and the notion trotted around here "there is no single meta" will warp into "tanks need a special ability to tank, otherwise the enemy will just ignore them and go after the caster".

The appeal to 'realism' is a massively subjective criterion.
And where does the idea that monsters will ignore a tank come from?

Not really. Intelligent monsters who are aware of spell casting as a thing will likely think that way, but a shark underwater? Not so much.
As I said before, ignore the dumb animals and the dragons. Talk about the enemies that everyone else is talking about when they say "they will just ignore the tank".

I think OP is conflating several different things:

1) the "NPCs will generally target in priority the targets they think they'll have an easier time hurting" tactical consideration.

2) the "martials don't deal enough damage so NPCs will ignore them" caster supremacy nonsense.

3) the "all NPCs are unfeeling automatons who will fight the PCs to the death until they're destroyed" school of handling combat.

I'll say, as most people before me, that IMO all NPCs will do tactical assessments and come to a conclusion depending on their goals and capacities, on the current context, and on what they can perceive and deduct of the PCs.

Attacking a squishy backliner is something most NPCs who can think tactically will want to do, BUT they're not going to ignore the two guys with greatswords just to rush the backline unless there are other factors in play that makes the enemy think getting whacked by big swords is somehow worth it.

Similarly, a caster NPC with a spell that can be dodged by agile people is likely going to favor using it on big clumsy oafs, and would target the party's rogue with said séell only if they don't see any other option. Or if there are other factors that make the caster want to abandon tactical considerations (ex: the Rogue just killed the caster's brother, so the caster is just lashing out with what in their mind is their most powerful spell, even if it has little chance to hurt this particular target).
I think the forum conflates these things. We've gotten examples of video games here, people have said martials will get ignored, people have given examples of tactics but in 2 of those 3 examples the enemies are not even engaging with the PCs in melee combat (very different scenario to the "move past the frontline" truism) and in the orc example, magic is used to facilitate moving at the caster, again very different than what we normally hear.

So I don't think I'm conflating anything until I see people contend directly with the "ignore the frontline" truism, which is not the same as the mobile ranged attack from cover tactics that people are providing as a response.

Goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds etc all have shamans and other spellcasters in their societies. They would know the power of these capabilities and might well decide to attack a spell caster over a fighter swinging a sword in front of them.
What do they think the fighter with the sword is going to do after they make that decision?


Intelligent opponents are very likely to notice yo-yo healing. If they "kill" a person and they get back up the next round then they become far more likely to make sure that they stay dead the next time (though a DM needs to let the players know that this is a common situation in the game world so that they can adjust tactics accordingly - some players assume that when a monster knocks out a PC they will just move on to the next target).
This is a good point and again, goes back to the NPC understanding of hit points from an in-world perspective. Does the NPC know that a "killing blow" will prevent the cleric from healing the wounds again and letting the wizard stand back up? What was the blow that reduced the wizard to 0? Did it look lethal? How does it look different from a "killing blow"?

On the other hand, an intelligent opponent with no previous experience with spell casting could well see a creature in the back wave their hands and see fire shoot at one of their friends. They could well decide that the flame shooting opponent is a bigger threat than the guy with a sword.
Because swords are not lethal to them?

I agree with the general sentiment of the OP, that people in and out of game tend to assume a lot about monster knowledge and ability to make rational decisions in combat. That said, some observations.

1. People talk a lot about focusing on casters and trying to bypass fighters, as if the difference between the two is readily visible in D&D-land. But there are casters in heavy armor and fighters in nothing but robes; the enemy doesn't know who the magical uber-threats are until they actually start casting, by which point it's often too late.
I want to highlight "it's often too late", because this is where this "tactic" needs explanation to make sense.

So enemy moves forward and trades attacks with the fighter. Wizard casts a spell. Fighter attacks enemy. Now enemy's turn comes up again and they realize the wizard is dangerous (supposedly more dangerous than fighter), so enemy moves to wizard and suffers an OA, and attacks the wizard. Wizard uses spell and pushes enemy away and retreats. Fighter moves to enemy and attacks.

So the enemy has divided their attention between fighter and wizard, while fighter and wizard have focused on the enemy and even got an extra attack in. How long will this last? How is this tactical?


2. Possessing the ability to reason tactically and being able to execute sophisticated tactics in a fight are meaningfully different things. Monsters that possess the ability to discern that a wizard is a bigger threat than the fighter may not have the nerve to expose themselves to the fighter's opportunity attacks to go for the wizard.
Correct; the truism ignores all of this; it even ignores the DM. But if you ask about it, suddenly it gets very thoughtful and open; there is no meta, it all depends on your game world, it's how the DM wants to run it.

I happen to agree with those notions. But if you let people get away with it, they will fall back and say "frontline will be ignored if you don't give them a special ability or reason not to be".

3. Which brings me to one of my stated goals when deciding on monster tactics: any creature of humanoid-adjacent size and proportions should behave as though one blow could immediately kill them or put them out of the fight. This is obviously a tricky fiction to maintain in D&D, where it's usually untrue of monsters above CR 1 or so, but the monsters are not aware of the "narrative cushion" of survival provided by HP totals. Consistently ignoring the warrior-types to focus on the spellcasters relies on taking the reality of HP-damage ratios and importing them directly into the fiction of the game, which is unappealing to me. Interestingly, I've found a method that actually plays into this quite well. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?636046-My-Terrible-Experiment)
Interesting, I will take a look.

I am unsure why it is a "kamikaze move" to ignore the big guy in armor while you and your buddies go after the guy in the blue robes who can wipe out half your number with a single spell, but is a lot easier to take down.
Does the big guy only have armor? Or is he also wielding a greataxe? Is it a battlemaster with extra damage on the attacks? Is it a polearm wielder that already got an OA when the enemy moved in, unloaded three attacks on their turn, and now is going to deliver another OA when the enemy moves toward the caster? Is it a barbarian with Great Weapon Master and very accurate Reckless attacks? Is it a Paladin that just smote the guy? When exactly do you start thinking you can ignore the guy with the weapon and it's not suicidal?

Assuming the wizard didn't tank their CON score to a below-average level, why do they look unhealthy or weak? Especially if they're wearing clothes that don't make their size or physique super obvious.
Yeah, let's talk about what casters look like with 14 Constitution and maybe a 14 Dex, and/or a 13 Strength so they can multiclass fighter or paladin. I'm sure they look super feeble.

Not to mention that when predators move in the herd runs, and the predators pick off the stragglers. This is NOT what happens in a D&D fight, which is precisely the entire point. The fighter is not going away. The barbarian doesn't just poof out of existence when you move past him. What is the NPC assumption here? They appear to be (1) weapon attacks won't kill me and (2) my weapon attacks will kill the wizard.

Is that reasonable if neither is true?

[JackPhoenix]

Would you mind elaborating on this a little, because I think an error I may be making is thinking that enemy NPCs have experience fighting PCs, which is different from experience fighting/killing other NPCs. PCs are extraordinary.

And the NPCs magically know they are facing PCs instead of another NPCs?


So the question is... how dangerous are NPC spellcasters in the world and how much do enemy NPCs know that to look for and target the party spellcaster? And as you allude to, in a fight where the players are conserving resources, does the meta hold? And in a nova, does the meta even have a chance to be implemented?

Fireball is a Fireball and Sleep is a Sleep, both can end the battle in a way single swing of an axe can't, no matter if it's a PC or NPCc casting it. Sure, the PC may be an evoker and do more damage with it, but that doesn't matter much.


I understand being a priority target. I don't understand "I will shrug off this greataxe attack and invite another one as I move past the barbarian and give him my back, because I'm just a sack of HPs and I think I can kill this other weaker sack of HPs while this barbarian is swinging at me, and now that I've killed the wizard at the cost of eating barbarian attacks for a few turns, I have the chance to take down the barbarian I haven't even hit once..."

But you understand "I will ignore the guy who may turn me into a frog or mind control me or kill my entire party with a huge fiery explosion because there's a tin can with a sword I can try to fight for a half a minute while the mage does his thing"?


I like the switch from "Generally..." to "That's always true, and that's why people keep mentioning it again and again."

Eh, I blame lack of sleep when I wrote that and jumping from a thought to a thought.


But let's focus on something else you said: "Generally, if you want enemies to attack you instead of others, you'll need to give them a reason to."

For me, and plenty of other people, and probably anyone that actually fights as a hobby or career, someone swinging an axe at your face IS a reason to attack them. You don't need anything else than that. That is a very compelling, very obvious NARRATIVE reason to attack back and focus your energy on that person. The only reason it is not enough for you and the online forum meta, is because this is a game with rules/mechanics like HPs and OAs that allow you to do the math and say "the wizard can fubar this fight for us, I have this many HPs, the fighter only gets a single attack on an OA, I'm going to completely ignore them and go for the wizard". My question is... what does this look and sound like from the enemy NPC perspective, because obviously the NPC doesn't know the rules and isn't metagaming. So what is their thinking, and what else do they "know/not-know" about the rules that shape the world?

"Well, I can fight this guy and get turned into a frog by the mage in the back, or I can disengage safely from him, which will take time and may get me turned into a frog by the mage in the back, or I can be a little reckless, go for the mage in the back before he can turn me into a frog, and trust in my armor and my skill that I can defend myself from the warrior without getting more than a light bruise."

Or maybe:
"Hm, the mage in the back is dangerous, but there's a warrior in the way. I may not be able to take either target quickly, but I have a bunch of friends with me, and together we can take the mage down before he can wipe us all out in a single fiery explosion, then we can deal with the warrior. I may keep the warrior occupied, but our chances against the mage are better if we all attack at once, so I'll better make my move now. The warrior may exploit the opening I'll create by moving towards the mage, but I'm confident I can survive that because I know how to defend myself against people with swords, and on the plus side, him focusing all his attention on me means my companions may safely move around him."


I literally said "ignore dragons" in response. Most enemies don't have fly speeds, massive hit points, legendary actions, etc. I'm talking about firefights between the PCs and other intelligent (average) humanoid warriors/casters. I want to understand how strong (or feeble) this notion is of "walk past the front line" and also what other truisms the NPCs live and die by.

It depends on a specific situation.


This is also speaking to the question I'm asking. I think it depends on what a "PC group" is. Are there many people in the world like the PCs? Have these particular bandits fought others like the PCs before? Or have they just waylaid merchants and traveling families and even survived some skirmishes with lawmen? What do the NPCs know is exactly the question. In Ludic's example, the orcs know about line of sight because they have experience fighting elven mages, and maybe have their own shamans. Do bandits know that line of sight is integral to targeting people with magic? Does the thug think that if he keeps the fighter between him and the wizard, the wizard will have a harder time targeting him, or is he aware that it won't have an impact for certain spells?

That's impossible to answer, because the answer will be different not only from table to table, but from campaign to campaign, and even encounter to encounter. One group of bandits may know how to deal with mages. Another may not.


I'm wondering what people believe the NPCs of the world know specifically when it comes to fighting the PCs.

Why specifically PCs? Sure, there are differences between NPC knights and mages and PC fighters and wizards, but they are about the same. PC and NPC casters both cast spells, PC and NPC warriors are both hardier targets that rely on weaker weapon attacks (inb4 "But my wizard is a Con 20 plate wearing dwarf and my fighter is elven samurai archer who dumped Con who can do unholy nova damage")


Assuming the wizard didn't tank their CON score to a below-average level, why do they look unhealthy or weak? Especially if they're wearing clothes that don't make their size or physique super obvious.

How often do you see wizard players describing their characters as hulking brutes or picking a race that could be described as such, and how often do you see fighter/barbarian players doing the same? Sure, the animal may go for a rogue or better yet, a halfling instead, but that's nitpicking.


And that's a video game where if you get murdered by walking past all the dangerous ratfolk with swords, you just reload and try again. NPC's want to survive, and that generally means "don't drop your defences against guys with deadly weapons who are standing right next to you".

It's an online game, there's an incentive to actually finish the mission and get reward, instead of wasting everyone's time and having to find another group. Sure, it's not as strong incentive as "You may actually die", but the NPC is also more likely to die from an 8d6 Fireball than from an 1d8+4 longsword.

[Keravath]

For me, and plenty of other people, and probably anyone that actually fights as a hobby or career, someone swinging an axe at your face IS a reason to attack them. You don't need anything else than that. That is a very compelling, very obvious NARRATIVE reason to attack back and focus your energy on that person. The only reason it is not enough for you and the online forum meta, is because this is a game with rules/mechanics like HPs and OAs that allow you to do the math and say "the wizard can fubar this fight for us, I have this many HPs, the fighter only gets a single attack on an OA, I'm going to completely ignore them and go for the wizard". My question is... what does this look and sound like from the enemy NPC perspective, because obviously the NPC doesn't know the rules and isn't metagaming. So what is their thinking, and what else do they "know/not-know" about the rules that shape the world?


Keep in mind that the tactics/strategy of one monster (or PC) will differ a lot from a group of monsters or PCs. A single opponent might decide to deal with the axe in the face first since there is a significant risk if they try to run past them. If that monster has friends, one might distract the nearby lesser threat while some or all of the others focus on the bigger more distant threat.

Although the situations aren't completely parallel, which is a bigger threat, the soldier with a gun 30 feet away or the machine gun nest or armored vehicle 100 feet away? If you have the tools to attack either, do some or all of your group focus on the bigger threat in the distance or the lesser threat that is closer?

It will obviously vary a lot depending on circumstances - what monsters are involved, what they likely know or can tell by watching - but if the monsters are aware that the opponent in the distance is a bigger threat to the group than the one standing close up then at least some of the monsters will likely try to attack the greater threat.

Those decisions involve no meta-gaming at all. They involve assessing what the NPC/monster in game might know and applying that knowledge to the tactics/strategies that they choose to employ. This is also why intelligent and knowledgeable opponents can often be the most dangerous for a party to deal with.

e.g. Is an adult dragon, most of whom have exceptional intelligence, going to let the fighter with the sword standing nearby stop them from chowing down on the wizard 80 feet away? The dragon knows that the fighter is unlikely to hurt them significantly with a single attack (that is in world knowledge, not meta-knowledge) while they are equally well aware that clerics and wizards are likely MUCH greater threats. I would find it difficult to justify a dragon deciding not to take out the most dangerous appearing opponent in a fight first. As for identifying opponents, what they are wearing, are they holding a weapon, do they have a holy symbol, orb, amulet, staff, wand, component pouch? Are they wearing armor, carrying a shield? And what actions they take ... did they just cast a spell? These are the things an intelligent monster/NPC will take into account when trying to decide what opponent to target.

Finally, even just the positioning of opponents gives away a lot of information. If an intelligent monster is in a fight and they see an armored opponent, perhaps even with a weapon in hand, standing 30' away from the fight and not moving any closer? They don't have a ranged weapon ... they don't appear to be attacking with any weapon. What are they doing? In world, the most logical conclusion for any creature using that tactic is that they plan to attack using some other method - most likely spellcasting - so it really doesn't need a genius to figure out that he characters/opponents that stand at the back apparently doing nothing might likely be the more dangerous ones in a world that is filled with magic.

[LudicSavant]

Sure, and then other threads will pop up and the notion trotted around here "there is no single meta" will warp into "tanks need a special ability to tank, otherwise the enemy will just ignore them and go after the caster".

Your mistake is thinking that's "warping" at all. Those statements do not contradict each other. If you are unclear on why, ender241's post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25428983&postcount=45) provides a solid answer.


I think part of what could be going on is a misconception related to the context of referenced forum discussions. I don't know what specifically you're referring to but often when people discuss NPC intelligence and tactics it's in the context of building an effective character. And people usually optimize with the assumption that they will face intelligent NPCs. It's easy to build a tank to be effective against really dumb enemies - just max con/dex and other defensive capabilities and stand there. Likewise, you can build a glass cannon and be highly effective against dumb enemies if you have a tank in your party.

But you really want to be effective in all (or at least most) encounters. So if you're a tank, you want to be able to make it harder for smart enemies to ignore you. So you focus on the harder to deal with situations and build around that, rather than focusing on the easy scenarios. So that's what people talk about on forums like this.

[Unoriginal]

The assumption for most D&D settings is that:


1) there are more adventurers than the PCs in the world

2) people know adventurers are a thing

Adventurer may not be the most common career, and it's know you need to not be an average joe to survive it, but people do take that path and their presence is expected by people, who often include that factor in their strategies and tactics if they got the brains for it.

Same way that people in-universe know there are underground mazes filled with traps in the world they live in, and will sometime decide to build or take over one for their own purpose.

That is the default assumption. A setting can be different, of course, but without a note saying the contrary, the expectation is that we use the default assumption.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I should note that there's a huge variation between tables about how much "tactical play/knowledge" is even desired. When I was playing with my nephews, having monsters that mostly responded to dumb challenges from the angry guy with a big wrench[1] but would occasionally chase the archer dude around the map was what was desired. Tucker's kobolds, etc? Not so much. With other tables, the answer varies.

I hear that some tables actually want NPCs to play as if they're sitting on the other side of the wargame table with full mechanics knowledge (call that the "skirmish game meta"). Yet others want the NPCs to act as MMO mobs, vulnerable to taunt abilities and generally "attacking the thing that has the most aggro" (call that the "MMO meta"). Others want a full psychological simulation of the NPC's mindset (call this the "impossible ask meta").

Also complicating this is malign magic causing people to act unusually. For me, a pack of wolves would rarely attack a band of armed humanoids unless one of two things is true
1) the party is intruding on their den area with cubs. And then they'll try to pull the party away.
2) there is some form of outside interference causing them to act strangely. And that might very well make them into suicidally aggressive creatures. Or not. Depending on what it is.

Bandits will only attack if
1) attacked (in which case fleeing is probably a good bet)
2) they have some ulterior motive (not just loot--a party of adventurers is more trouble than they're worth, most of the time) and are getting paid enough/threatened enough. In which case they'll act appropriately.

As far as knowledge--they know what they see. They don't automatically know that someone is a wizard unless 1) they've seen them cast spells or 2) they've been spying on the party or 3) they've been told by someone who has done #1 or #2. Once they do know, they'll add that fact to their threat calculus. But it's just one factor.

For example, one of my parties, including a dragon knight with his dragon(ish) companion, a wizard, a dexadin, and a monk-alike (no armor, no visible weapons), fought a band of hardened killers. That band decided that their priority target was the dragon companion. Not because that was the biggest threat, but because they were there hunting dragons and had the (false) belief that the dragon was mostly in charge. And they had dragon-slaying weapons.

[1] a barbarian with a +1 maul shaped like a giant two-handed wrench looted from some dwarven ruins.

[Azuresun]

How often do you see wizard players describing their characters as hulking brutes or picking a race that could be described as such, and how often do you see fighter/barbarian players doing the same? Sure, the animal may go for a rogue or better yet, a halfling instead, but that's nitpicking.

OK, so "hulking brutes" will be ignored. So monks and DEX fighters will also be marked for death for being insufficiently brawny?

[quote]It's an online game, there's an incentive to actually finish the mission and get reward, instead of wasting everyone's time and having to find another group. Sure, it's not as strong incentive as "You may actually die", but the NPC is also more likely to die from an 8d6 Fireball than from an 1d8+4 longsword.

Again: Before any spells have been cast, how does the NPC know it's a wizard, rather than a harmless scholar, or an apprentice wizard who can throw out a ray of frost as their most powerful attack? Vs the guy who is right next to you hitting you with a deadly weapon right now?

And why does the NPC believe that swords are less lethal (when for 99% of the people in the setting, they're every bit as deadly as the fireball)?

The message I'm getting from this thread is that everyone REALLY hates robes and pointy hats and will instantly mark anyone wearing them for death, so wizards logically stopped wearing them years ago. Monks should dress as wizards, and everyone should carry a holy symbol to be mistaken for a cleric.

[strangebloke]

Again: Before any spells have been cast, how does the NPC know it's a wizard, rather than a harmless scholar, or an apprentice wizard who can throw out a ray of frost as their most powerful attack? Vs the guy who is right next to you hitting you with a deadly weapon right now?

I mean, spellbooks, spellcasting foci, holy symbols, instruments? These things are commonly visible. And that's without mentioning obvious magical effects that might have been cast beforehand, or the fact that even if the baddies don't know they're a caster, they will as soon as spells start getting cast.

But beyond that, yes, I would absolutely have orcs try to rush down dex fighters who are lightly armored and using bows. Dex fighters on the front lines with shields, not so much. In fact, I'd probably have the orcs go after anyone on the 'back line' if they can. It's pretty obvious that the people hanging back don't want to get into melee, which means that's what you want to do if you can, yeah?

And sometimes? This is bad strategy. Maybe the wizard is a bladesinger who's hanging back. Maybe the monk lost initiative and is thus 'hanging back' but still has 20 AC. Maybe they do target the barbarian because "she's wide open and unarmored! She's just one dwarf, surely I can take her down!"But its reasonable for monsters to use strategies that makes sense for them.

[Segev]

Does the big guy only have armor? Or is he also wielding a greataxe? Is it a battlemaster with extra damage on the attacks? Is it a polearm wielder that already got an OA when the enemy moved in, unloaded three attacks on their turn, and now is going to deliver another OA when the enemy moves toward the caster? Is it a barbarian with Great Weapon Master and very accurate Reckless attacks? Is it a Paladin that just smote the guy? When exactly do you start thinking you can ignore the guy with the weapon and it's not suicidal?


You see before you a guy wearing plate armor and holding a big sword. Twenty feet behind him is a guy wearing a white dress shirt and slacks, carrying a pistol and lobbing hand grenades. Do you:
Run up to the guy in plate mail and try to stab him with your pocket knife while the guy in back shoots at you and the plate mail guy swings his sword at you while you plink off his plate mail, or
run past the guy with the sword, hoping he can't cut you in half, to take out the guy who's lobbing grenades but that you're pretty sure you can stab with your pocket knife and actually make a difference?

[JackPhoenix]

OK, so "hulking brutes" will be ignored. So monks and DEX fighters will also be marked for death for being insufficiently brawny?

If we're talking about animal looking for a weakest-looking prey, and there's nobody more fititng that description than the monk or the dex fighter? Sure. Because apparently that has to be spelled explicitly for people trying to nitpick.


Again: Before any spells have been cast, how does the NPC know it's a wizard, rather than a harmless scholar, or an apprentice wizard who can throw out a ray of frost as their most powerful attack? Vs the guy who is right next to you hitting you with a deadly weapon right now?

Who says they do know?


And why does the NPC believe that swords are less lethal (when for 99% of the people in the setting, they're every bit as deadly as the fireball)?

Because NPCs in a combat are not (usually) commoners, and they know roughly how dangerous an opponent with a sword is to them. A guard with 11 hp usually doesn't die instantly to a single attack with a sword. He usualy dies instantly when hit by Fireball.


You see before you a guy wearing plate armor and holding a big sword. Twenty feet behind him is a guy wearing a white dress shirt and slacks, carrying a pistol and lobbing hand grenades. Do you:
Run up to the guy in plate mail and try to stab him with your pocket knife while the guy in back shoots at you and the plate mail guy swings his sword at you while you plink off his plate mail, or
run past the guy with the sword, hoping he can't cut you in half, to take out the guy who's lobbing grenades but that you're pretty sure you can stab with your pocket knife and actually make a difference?

There's also unspoken 3. Retreat or surrender, because you're clearly outmatched and you're in a white-room scenario and don't have any motivation to actually fight, because you're just an example in an argument, not a character in an actual encounter.

[da newt]

For me this question is one of the most intriguing aspects of Dm-ing - it's one of the things I enjoy most. For me every NPC/creature is unique and their knowledge, tactics, goals, modus operandi, desire to live, and ability to adjust vary from creature to creature.

Some beasts and monsters are fairly simple or instinctual but a pack of wolves should use sound techniques when hunting ... Some creatures have a history of military tactics (Hobgoblin) ... some creatures are insane and care little about their own safety ... for some combat is a way of life ... etc

This (for me) is one of the subjects I enjoy most about DM-ing - trying to figure out what the NPCs / creatures would do and why. For me meta is the part where you dispense with attempting to be realistic and default to 'playing the game to win according to the rules.' I prefer to avoid meta whenever I can.

As Phoenix put it : Others want a full psychological simulation of the NPC's mindset (call this the "impossible ask meta"). - as DM, this is my goal.

As for tactics - some creatures / NPCs should have full knowledge and strategies for dealing with tanks and spell slingers, some creatures / NPCs should have none at all.

[Segev]

There's also unspoken 3. Retreat or surrender, because you're clearly outmatched and you're in a white-room scenario and don't have any motivation to actually fight, because you're just an example in an argument, not a character in an actual encounter.

Please outline for me a white room or other scenario where (1) is the correct option over (2). You may set up your environment and your own side as you like, provided you do not invalidate the armorguy and grenadeguy's strategy of having grenadeguy lobbing grenades or shooting individuals with his gun if he needs to support armorguy.

At best, I suspect you could construct the environment such that you cannot get past armorguy due to choke points.

But if there's any way that you CAN go around armorguy, what scenario would you prefer to go start with attacking armorguy than to go and stop grenadeguy from lobbing grenades and taking out multiple people on your side at once?

[Burley]

Re: the Hulking Brute idea

In my mind, if a monster (assuming smart beast intelligence, like a wolf) wants to pick off the weakest looking member of a group, they're most likely an ambush hunter. With that logic, its fair game to target the wizard rather than the fighter.
But, if the monster is defending their territory or otherwise being unleashed upon the group, a monster would most likely first target the biggest threat, which, to a monster, would be the biggest threat, i.e. the tank.
Now, pack hunters (like wolves) would do both at the same time. Distract the biggest threat while they pick off the weakest target, then mostly retreat to eat wizard guts.

I think its important, in order for combat to be engaging for the players (more than just waiting for their turn to come around), squishy targets need to be at risk, so the tank can interpose themselves and do their jobs. The only time, in my experience, that playing a tank is fun is when you get to stop an enemy from hurting an ally.

My experience: I recently played a one shot with my Paladin Warforged (spec'd to defend allies, reducing damage to adjacent targets, etc). When I could do my job, I was happy. But, the other three party members (all casters) kept moving in front of me, or using Dash to be closer to enemies. The combat arena was a bottomless pit with 10x10 platforms, so, them running around like decapitated ducks made my job very difficult. The DM played the enemies logically, though, because the squishies kept getting into the faces of the monsters. So, I guess the topic of this thread would be moot if the players aren't playing their characters logically. I imagine many tables have sorcerers dying to use thunderwave and then dying as a result.


Please outline for me a white room or other scenario where (1) is the correct option over (2). You may set up your environment and your own side as you like, provided you do not invalidate the armorguy and grenadeguy's strategy of having grenadeguy lobbing grenades or shooting individuals with his gun if he needs to support armorguy.


So, in this white room, where I control the monster, do you assume my monster knows what grenades or crossbows are and what their threat level is at a glance? Because, when I'm thinking about my dire bear monster, its going to attack the most threatening enemy: Sir Armorguy. (I knighted him. He works hard.)
If my monster is an intelligent creature, like a goblin that knows about artillery and spells, it wouldn't do the white room fight at all, because its completely disadvantageous to the goblin. If my monsters are smart enough to choose targets based on inferred threat levels, they're smart enough to not fight the white room encounter you've laid out. Or, I guess, they're confident enough in their ability to wipe out both targets than target order wouldn't matter so much.

I bold the word monster to point out that these are monsters, not PCs. The DM has human intelligence and can see the battlefield, top-down, isometrically. Monsters do not, generally, have human intelligence and do not have full battlefield intel.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ok, I can't reply to everyone just yet but again, I want to try and refocus the conversation.

When I say "ignore the frontline" I AM NOT talking about "not engaging" the frontline. That's very different.

I am talking about when someone is building a tank or frontline fighter and they are told the online trusim that enemies will just go around them. The assumption is that they have already engaged and have found the fighter to be not a threat because the attacks are not doing a lot of damage or condition imposition. So they just decide to target the wizard instead.

If your example is not talking about this, then you're not really engaging with the point. If your example involves fighting from a distance, or not even getting within melee of the frontline, etc, then I most likely agree with your examples.

But if you're talking about enemies that are right in the thick of things and choose to ignore the frontline, then I DO want to know what they believe about the game world that makes them simultaneously a skilled warrior, and a skilled warrior that does not find another skilled warrior a lethal threat.

[Xervous]

[1] a barbarian with a +1 maul shaped like a giant two-handed wrench looted from some dwarven ruins.

Please tell me there’s at least one “you really need to loosen up” cracks that were made.

[Sparky McDibben]

But if you're talking about enemies that are right in the thick of things and choose to ignore the frontline, then I DO want to know what they believe about the game world that makes them simultaneously a skilled warrior, and a skilled warrior that does not find another skilled warrior a lethal threat.

It's not that the other warrior isn't a threat, it's that they are a known threat. But casters? Shoot, hoss. They could steal your soul, turn you into a frog, take over your mind, or generally do stuff that you both cannot counter and do not understand. Leaving the caster in play is therefore a huge gamble. So you kill them first, and now your uncertainty is resolved; now you can deal with the rest of the party using mundane tactics and equipment.

[Segev]

So, in this white room, where I control the monster, do you assume my monster knows what grenades or crossbows are and what their threat level is at a glance? Because, when I'm thinking about my dire bear monster, its going to attack the most threatening enemy: Sir Armorguy. (I knighted him. He works hard.)
If my monster is an intelligent creature, like a goblin that knows about artillery and spells, it wouldn't do the white room fight at all, because its completely disadvantageous to the goblin. If my monsters are smart enough to choose targets based on inferred threat levels, they're smart enough to not fight the white room encounter you've laid out. Or, I guess, they're confident enough in their ability to wipe out both targets than target order wouldn't matter so much.

I bold the word monster to point out that these are monsters, not PCs. The DM has human intelligence and can see the battlefield, top-down, isometrically. Monsters do not, generally, have human intelligence and do not have full battlefield intel.

Sure, your owlbear attacking the first thing it sees makes sense.

Are you seriously telling me that goblins only come in "overwhelming numbers such that it doesn't matter who they attack" and "unable to fight two guys?"

For me, I was not assuming your monsters knew grenadeguy even had grenades until after he's started lobbing them. I was then assuming the monsters were able to recognize that the grenades were coming from grenadeguy, and were more dangerous than your knighted Sir Armorguy's sword. Also, that grenadeguy is squishier than the obviously-armored knight.


Also, since we're moving out of white room scenarios, Sir Armorguy and his buddy Grenadeguy are not giving the goblins a choice, and are attacking the goblins, chasing them down or invading their dungeon-lair. Are you still telling me that the goblins will ignore the source of explosions and go for the knight, because ignoring the knight is suicidal but ignoring the grenadier is...fine?

[Dr.Samurai]

It's not that the other warrior isn't a threat, it's that they are a known threat. But casters? Shoot, hoss. They could steal your soul, turn you into a frog, take over your mind, or generally do stuff that you both cannot counter and do not understand. Leaving the caster in play is therefore a huge gamble. So you kill them first, and now your uncertainty is resolved; now you can deal with the rest of the party using mundane tactics and equipment.
Yeah but the point is that everyone is treating "known threat" as "not lethal". So that means the bad guys are operating under the same sort of HP abstraction as the DM and players. Also, it sounds like literally everyone in the game worlds have encountered level 9 casters and have survived them enough to wary of and laser-focused on any caster they come across. No one will ever be surprised to find out what the wizard in the party can do, they already know and they've already got his number.

That's why I'm asking these questions. What are the in-game world assumptions the NPCs are operating under.

[Xervous]

The thing with disproportionately hard to kill units that lack direct mitigation options for allies is a matter of relative positioning. You can’t prevent enemies from moving, you can only ask your allies to position better, but you can position yourself far more aggressively than a less durable combatant might able to. When you are capable of threatening swift or immediate death, self preservation will keep others treading lightly. Except past a point the typical slab of meat doesn’t threaten all that much harm.

[Willie the Duck]

I think this part of the conversation could be summed up and made more clear (so yes, I think you might not have asked clearly enough).

D&D (especially 5e) has an interesting quirk where rushing past on opponent (within range of their strikes, or reasonable-movement+strike) to get to a different one is a reasonable action. In real life, maneuvering past a front line to get to a dangerous-but-fragile opponents is a time-honored tactic, but that's different. Rushing past means opening yourself up to a potentially deadly (and certainly combat-effectiveness-ending) attack to which you are deliberately not most effectively defending yourself. It likely will end poorly for both you and your battle strategy. D&D doesn't have the same setup because 1) the 'move on your initiative order and then freeze in place while everyone else acts' play conceit means that characters' zone of control ends with the reach of their weapon, disallowing move-to-intercept actions which IRL would probably happen, and 2) Because of Hit Points, the damage from a single Opportunity Attack isn't likely (or at least guaranteed) to drop/incapacitate/render ineffective an opponent.

The question becomes whether this should apply in a D&D game. In early editions of the game, there often were constrained rules on the matter -- once an enemy engaged with an opponent, their options were to keep fighting or run away (at the start of combat they could advance towards any opponent they had line of movement towards, but that's why 10' corridors and a row of fighters and henchmen in front were important). 5e's rules don't reflect the same thing, and as such it is tactically sound, some-to-much of the time, to move around the fighter types (especially a high-AC, low -individual-attack-damage types) and maul the party wizard or druid.

Is that a problem, or a reasonable tactical challenge the PCs need to resolve? Depends on group. If it is a problem, then perhaps a gentleperson's agreement can be leveraged to fill that gap where the rules don't (and in which case, the meta should be that (most) monsters don't rush past like that, because it is a suicidal tactic (even though the rules don't reflect it). If it's simply a reasonable tactic, expect a lot more mountain dwarf wizards, monk1/druidX-1, valor bards over lore, and so forth. Not a problem, just a different experience.



Why is that ridiculous? Pushing past a defensive line to get to an objective is a thing people do in real life. And they do it even more in fantasy fiction where there are vast discrepancies in character durability / threat levels.


Because it's totally unrealistic, which is why I am asking the question in the OP, though I see now I should have said "enemy NPCs" as opposed to "monsters". It sounds less like thoughtful consideration and more like caster supremacy arrogance. So I'm curious how it's justified, because it strikes me as a kamikaze move.


I don't agree. It might be unrealistic for some monsters. Something like a zombie shouldn't be breaking out advanced tactics.


I may not be making my point or ask clearly enough,...
For me, and plenty of other people, and probably anyone that actually fights as a hobby or career, someone swinging an axe at your face IS a reason to attack them. You don't need anything else than that. That is a very compelling, very obvious NARRATIVE reason to attack back and focus your energy on that person. The only reason it is not enough for you and the online forum meta, is because this is a game with rules/mechanics like HPs and OAs that allow you to do the math and say "the wizard can fubar this fight for us, I have this many HPs, the fighter only gets a single attack on an OA, I'm going to completely ignore them and go for the wizard". My question is... what does this look and sound like from the enemy NPC perspective, because obviously the NPC doesn't know the rules and isn't metagaming. So what is their thinking, and what else do they "know/not-know" about the rules that shape the world?


I am unsure why it is a "kamikaze move" to ignore the big guy in armor while you and your buddies go after the guy in the blue robes who can wipe out half your number with a single spell, but is a lot easier to take down.


Does the big guy only have armor? Or is he also wielding a greataxe? Is it a battlemaster with extra damage on the attacks? Is it a polearm wielder that already got an OA when the enemy moved in, unloaded three attacks on their turn, and now is going to deliver another OA when the enemy moves toward the caster? Is it a barbarian with Great Weapon Master and very accurate Reckless attacks? Is it a Paladin that just smote the guy? When exactly do you start thinking you can ignore the guy with the weapon and it's not suicidal?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ok, I can't reply to everyone just yet but again, I want to try and refocus the conversation.

When I say "ignore the frontline" I AM NOT talking about "not engaging" the frontline. That's very different.

I am talking about when someone is building a tank or frontline fighter and they are told the online trusim that enemies will just go around them. The assumption is that they have already engaged and have found the fighter to be not a threat because the attacks are not doing a lot of damage or condition imposition. So they just decide to target the wizard instead.

If your example is not talking about this, then you're not really engaging with the point. If your example involves fighting from a distance, or not even getting within melee of the frontline, etc, then I most likely agree with your examples.

But if you're talking about enemies that are right in the thick of things and choose to ignore the frontline, then I DO want to know what they believe about the game world that makes them simultaneously a skilled warrior, and a skilled warrior that does not find another skilled warrior a lethal threat.

I feel like you're not engaging with the actual argument here. The frontline is not being ignored, they're being deemed a lesser threat/appealing target due to knowledge the enemy would very reasonably have.

If Bandits have outnumbered the party and successfully ambushed them, they know magic exists and would reasonably target whichever target appears to be able to cast it because that would have the greatest chance of turning their ambush against them. It's not that the frontliners (or in this example, those that appear to be armored martials) are being ignored but that the backliners (those who appear to be spellcasters) are being deemed a higher threat under the circumstances.

Of course the frontliner is a lethal threat, but he can be easily outnnumbered and has little to no ability to engage with multiple enemies. The backliner (again, appearing to be a spellcaster in this case) has magic, something even a Bandit understands can be devestating on a wide scale and can engage with multiple enemies at once. It's logical, given all that they would reasonably know, to assess the apparent spellcaster as the biggest threat.

This is likely true whether they're currently engaged in melee combat with the frontline or not, once the first bandit runs past the frontline it's open season, the frontline has expended their opportunity attack and can no longer be considered any threat to engaging with the backline for the remainder of that turn. There's no guarantee that this opportunity attack has successfully defended the backline either, the bandit can survive it. The entire group of bandits is also much more likely to survive after the backline is dead.

This is in large part why discussion on how to be an effective defensive frontliner involves having abilities that interfere with enemies ability to act on this line of thought. Sentinal+Pam, Spirit Guardians, Aura of Conquest, Warding Maneuver, Hold the Line, the list goes on and on. These abilities exist for that frontliner who wants to defend their backline against the, once again, very reasonable conclusion that any enemy with any understanding of the game world would reach to target the back line who appears to be a deadly spellcaster first to minimize the odds that their entire party is wiped out from their actions.

Now, I went a bit fast through the thread so if this is already mentioned forgive me for repeating it, but isn't this a common tactic that Players employ? We also target what appears to be a spellcaster first because we understand their ability to inflict harm on our entire party... Why wouldn't monsters also understand this? Why do we expect the monsters to act differently given the same amount of knowledge that we are? In the case of non-humanoid monsters, why do we expect them to be stupid and throw themselves at the equivalent of a brick wall? I feel like your argument isn't treating enemy encounters like they exist in the game world but instead like they've spawned in ex-nihilo with no knowledge but what they learn after engaging the party.

I don't want it to seem like I'm not engaging with your argument, I just don't understand it even from the premise. The monsters do what the players would do in the same situation, they try to survive and they actually know things about the world they live in to inform the choices they make to try and survive. They have risk assessment skills, they know what threatens them and what doesn't.

Edit - It's a this point I remember that it's often forgotten that turns are an abstraction of time. Remember that each creatures turn in combat is simultaneous in world, it's not each bandit taking their turn to walk past the frontline after the first expends the frontlines opportunity attack, they're all rushing past at once to assault the backline and the frontline has time only to interact with a single one unless they have a special ability to do more. It's safe the bandits to assume that the frontline is at the standard of only being able to stop one of them, the exceptions to this are rare.

[ZRN]

What I generally don't do is people (as in, reasonably humanoid stuff - giant monsters have a different calculus) just walking past a frontline taking all the AoEs without giving a crap because "hey, I have a lot of hp, I can take it" without some very good reason. Sure, on the meta level we know you can't drop a dude with a sword stab because HP are linear, but if they're not supposed to be meat points, but how much you can manage to avoid via skill, luck, and sheer narrative plot armor, before eating a telling blow, people are generally not going to risk seeing if their luck holds running past dudes with swords without pressing reason.

I tend to think of high HP as skill than luck or "plot armor," particularly for NPCs who have none of the latter. There's no real "verisimilitude" here because in real life one lucky hit from a sword or knife or bullet will incapacitate the best "warrior" alive; we have to imagine we're in an action-movie (or, um, fantasy) world where expert fighters can confidently fight off a dozen guys. In THAT world, I think we can assume the orc warrior can be pretty confident that he can parry off any passing blows without serious damage on his way to stampede the back-liners. (And remember, in real-time the tank getting an opportunity attack isn't just standing there waiting to pounce - he's right in the middle of his own actions, running around and fighting whoever, so it's probably pretty easy to justify running past him while he's distracted.)

ETA: I will say that the argument "NPCs should act like PCs since they have the same level of in-world knowledge" is probably flawed, because most parties of PCs don't really act the way most sane people would in-world. For the PLAYERS, (often) the game is fun when the whole party is cooperating as a team to win the encounter, so individual PCs will often take great personal risks in support of broader tactical considerations. Like, if I'm playing a level 10 rogue I'm very likely to dive past a "tank" enemy to get a good shot in at the "mage" enemy behind them, because I know that's the best thing to help us win, and if I take some damage or even get KO'd I can probably trust the other party members to heal me. But an NPC bandit or orc raider in the same tactical situation against the PC party is likely to have very different personal priorities: he probably has less loyal and focused companions, and very likely has less access to healing magic, and maybe most of all, he has to actually physically experience getting stabbed in the gut whereas I as a player just have to write "-8" on a sheet. So I think part of being an exceptional DM is constantly taking stock of each NPC's situation, mindset, and motivations, and reacting accordingly.

[ender241]

Yeah but the point is that everyone is treating "known threat" as "not lethal". So that means the bad guys are operating under the same sort of HP abstraction as the DM and players. Also, it sounds like literally everyone in the game worlds have encountered level 9 casters and have survived them enough to wary of and laser-focused on any caster they come across. No one will ever be surprised to find out what the wizard in the party can do, they already know and they've already got his number.

That's why I'm asking these questions. What are the in-game world assumptions the NPCs are operating under.

Every situation will be different. But if you build your tank to handle the "enemies ignore me" situation you can still easily handle the "enemies stand there trading blows with me" situation. You win either way. If you build your tank to handle only the "enemies stand there trading blows with me" situation you're screwed when you encounter the "Enemies ignore me" situation. So people rightly focus on the more difficult situation, and consider a tank only effective if it can handle both.

Read my first post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25428983&postcount=45) if you haven't yet.

[Tawmis]

(Also interesting how many people seem to assume that spellcasters always dress in a way that makes it super obvious that they're spellcasters. Clearly, armies should employ some random people to dress as wizards and stand in the back, so that the enemy will kill themselves racing through a block of spearmen to take out the decoys.)

Sure, except - most (intelligent) races have ranged weapons - so why run towards the "decoys" - why not focus fire your archers on them?
Decoy or wizard, they got some arrows headed their way.


Before they start spellcasting, what makes someone "obviously" a cleric? Vs say, a war cleric with a sword and armour, or a superstitious fighter with a holy symbol?
Seems to me that disguise would become very important if every NPC in the world has a hate-on for people who wear robes!

Obvious cleric? Well, the holy symbol they're brandishing - or on their chest. Which could also, technically mean they're a paladin.
Regardless, take down the "healers" which would be anyone seen doing forms of healing.



Again: Before any spells have been cast, how does the NPC know it's a wizard, rather than a harmless scholar, or an apprentice wizard who can throw out a ray of frost as their most powerful attack? Vs the guy who is right next to you hitting you with a deadly weapon right now?
And why does the NPC believe that swords are less lethal (when for 99% of the people in the setting, they're every bit as deadly as the fireball)?


Easy.

Weapon = Stab 1 person. In your face. You can hit back, if you don't die.
Fireball = Cast from a distance. Does an AREA effect. Can't exactly hit back (for melee).

So in every regard, anyone who looks like a caster of Wizardry type - should always be considered a big threat.
They might just be a scholar, if that's the case, they made a poor choice going out into the dangerous world.

[Burley]

If Bandits have outnumbered the party and successfully ambushed them, they know magic exists and would reasonably target whichever target appears to be able to cast it because that would have the greatest chance of turning their ambush against them. It's not that the frontliners (or in this example, those that appear to be armored martials) are being ignored but that the backliners (those who appear to be spellcasters) are being deemed a higher threat under the circumstances.

Just a really quick point I'd like to make, which I alluded to in my previous post: If I control these Bandits, and they're smart enough to spot a wizard, why would they target that group? What bandit has every survived a wizard? Now, I can imagine a group of bandits ambushing a group that looks to be a thin, well-dressed individual carrying a book and their body guard. But, if Bandits, generally known for being sneaky dagger guys, know that they're about to ambush a guy that can sling fireballs, they wouldn't ambush the guy. They'd wait for the next group on the road.
If your game world is one that every other group travelling the Old Road is going to have a spellcaster in it, Banditry wouldn't exist. It's too dangerous. You'd never get a large enough payout to be worth the immediate loss of life.

If a [monster] can determine a PCs character class (or even just archetype), its smart enough to either avoid the combat or wait until they can strike advantageously. Maybe, instead of "Bandit" you mean "Assassin?" Then, I can imagine them using tactics to shut down the wizard quickly.


I'm just saying: Tactics isn't only how to fight, its also when to fight.

[Pex]

Monsters work together in strategy and tactics at the speed of DM thought. As groups of monsters go at the same time in initiative they can coordinate their attacks to optimum efficiency. When there will be a fight, guaranteed before the game session even started, they know exactly what they will do in round one. Monsters are better at surprising and ambushing PC than the reverse. Bad guy spellcasters' illusions are always perfect.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Just a really quick point I'd like to make, which I alluded to in my previous post: If I control these Bandits, and they're smart enough to spot a wizard, why would they target that group? What bandit has every survived a wizard? Now, I can imagine a group of bandits ambushing a group that looks to be a thin, well-dressed individual carrying a book and their body guard. But, if Bandits, generally known for being sneaky dagger guys, know that they're about to ambush a guy that can sling fireballs, they wouldn't ambush the guy. They'd wait for the next group on the road.

Maybe, instead of "Bandit" you mean "Assassin?" Then, I can imagine them using tactics to shut down the wizard quickly.


I'm just saying: Tactics isn't only how to fight, its also when to fight.

Is the ambush is "successful" they've got a good chance of killing the spellcaster before anyone can act. This would play in nicely to that risk assessment aspect or giving NPC's personality traits that might adjust their risk assessment. If the bandit group is desperate, stupid or confident in their stealth they might go for this risky encounter still.

Also, why would they assume there will be a next group on the road? They need this money now. They've taken up a dangerous and illegal profession, they might not have the luxury of being picky, that doesn't mean they won't act with the best chances of success though.

[Tawmis]

Just a really quick point I'd like to make, which I alluded to in my previous post: If I control these Bandits, and they're smart enough to spot a wizard, why would they target that group? What bandit has every survived a wizard? Now, I can imagine a group of bandits ambushing a group that looks to be a thin, well-dressed individual carrying a book and their body guard. But, if Bandits, generally known for being sneaky dagger guys, know that they're about to ambush a guy that can sling fireballs, they wouldn't ambush the guy. They'd wait for the next group on the road.
Maybe, instead of "Bandit" you mean "Assassin?" Then, I can imagine them using tactics to shut down the wizard quickly.
I'm just saying: Tactics isn't only how to fight, its also when to fight.

While true, tactics is knowing when to fight...
A group of bandits who have locked down an area, will know the area well, and know when/where to ambush.
A smart group of bandits, who knows the area, knows the general types of people who travel the route they've marked - won't just attack from the front.
They will set up a group to hit the back.
Knowing melee will rush the front group - and when they do - group 2 of bandits, pops up from the trees, sends arrows into the backs of the wizards (and whoever else happens to be standing in the back) and try to take them down that way. Which will cause the melee types to now decide - keep fighting the bandits that were in the front - or turn around and go help their back group?

[Willowhelm]

Please outline for me a white room or other scenario where (1) is the correct option over (2). You may set up your environment and your own side as you like, provided you do not invalidate the armorguy and grenadeguy's strategy of having grenadeguy lobbing grenades or shooting individuals with his gun if he needs to support armorguy.

At best, I suspect you could construct the environment such that you cannot get past armorguy due to choke points.

But if there's any way that you CAN go around armorguy, what scenario would you prefer to go start with attacking armorguy than to go and stop grenadeguy from lobbing grenades and taking out multiple people on your side at once?

My initial response was also option 3 - run away.

But.

Option 1 is a thing that happens in movies a lot and in dnd it could be viable. The only part that makes this tricky is you have explicitly said option 1 includes failing to do damage.

Anyway. If I was say… a halfling monk or maybe rogue. I could use this big brute in armor as additional cover, potentially stun them, slip my dagger in between the plates etc. The additional cover makes those ranged pistol shots harder, as a monk I can deflect missiles, as a rogue I have evasion and uncanny dodge.

If I’m a grappler maybe I can grapple this guy and use his body as a shield to reach the other guy. Maybe I have disarming options or I can knock him prone and use him as cover for my own ranged attacks…

Those grenades are probably not coming in for friendly fire but if they are… great! I take less damage, plate guy takes a lot.

It all depends on context.

Of course your npcs might not have those tactical options/mechanics in their stat block. They might be more limited and have to just do the best they can… like run to the person shooting them because they can’t deal with plate armor while that’s happening. Maybe dash at first to get distance from plate guy then prone or take cover to get to the pistol guy as they approach.

(Be aware - I absolutely argued in favour of dpr being a viable tanking mechanic in the tanking thread a while back. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.)

Equally if I have no way to deal with plate guy while being shot at, but I can deal with pistol guy and then kite plate guy… then I’ll do that.

This is basic paper-rock-scissors stuff. You use what you have to beat the thing you can beat.

If something can be ignored (even at a cost) and something else can’t (at any cost) then you deal with the thing that can’t be ignored. If the cost/benefit goes a different way then it changes the decision.

None of this is about the “meta” though. The “meta” in the world is changed by adding firearms, or how common they are, and grenades (any commoner has aoe now!). That’s the OPs question I think. What is the “meta”, what knowledge is reasonable for the npcs to know/believe about how combat is going to play out.

[Psyren]

Ok, I can't reply to everyone just yet but again, I want to try and refocus the conversation.

When I say "ignore the frontline" I AM NOT talking about "not engaging" the frontline. That's very different.

I am talking about when someone is building a tank or frontline fighter and they are told the online trusim that enemies will just go around them. The assumption is that they have already engaged and have found the fighter to be not a threat because the attacks are not doing a lot of damage or condition imposition. So they just decide to target the wizard instead.

It's less that enemies WILL go around them and more that they COULD. And therefore that the tank player, if they want to be top-tier, should take that possibility into account. Some builds are capable of preventing that entirely, some are completely unable to, and others fall somewhere in the middle.

If your question is "could some enemies feasibly stop engaging the frontline to go after the backline," the answer is yes. If your question is whether a given enemy will do this or not, that's wholly dependent on your DM.

[Burley]

Is the ambush is "successful" they've got a good chance of killing the spellcaster before anyone can act. This would play in nicely to that risk assessment aspect or giving NPC's personality traits that might adjust their risk assessment. If the bandit group is desperate, stupid or confident in their stealth they might go for this risky encounter still.

Also, why would they assume there will be a next group on the road? They need this money now. They've taken up a dangerous and illegal profession, they might not have the luxury of being picky, that doesn't mean they won't act with the best chances of success though.

So, this group of Bandits came together for one last job and they've decided to attack the first group of people they see, apropos of nothing? It is a dangerous and illegal profession, meaning they're going to be judicious about their targets, especially if they (like you) are operating under the assumption that Wizards are common enough to be in any ol' random travelling group. If they really need money that badly, and mages are that common, they'd do a smash-and-grab in the night, not a bandit ambush on adventuring parties.

[Keravath]

Ok, I can't reply to everyone just yet but again, I want to try and refocus the conversation.

When I say "ignore the frontline" I AM NOT talking about "not engaging" the frontline. That's very different.

I am talking about when someone is building a tank or frontline fighter and they are told the online trusim that enemies will just go around them. The assumption is that they have already engaged and have found the fighter to be not a threat because the attacks are not doing a lot of damage or condition imposition. So they just decide to target the wizard instead.

If your example is not talking about this, then you're not really engaging with the point. If your example involves fighting from a distance, or not even getting within melee of the frontline, etc, then I most likely agree with your examples.

But if you're talking about enemies that are right in the thick of things and choose to ignore the frontline, then I DO want to know what they believe about the game world that makes them simultaneously a skilled warrior, and a skilled warrior that does not find another skilled warrior a lethal threat.

If a creature is intelligent and knowledgeable in a game world then the fighter with a sword next to them is a lethal threat - but the guy in the robes 30' is a more lethal threat to both them AND their group of monsters/NPCs. The monster may also know that if they run away, the PC is only likely to get one swing before they are out of range (that is not rules that is in-world experience), the monster/NPC knows that the attack may miss and even if it hits it could be glancing blow. They also know that if the fighter chooses to swing at them, they won't have time to also swing at their buddy. So by running to attack the bigger threat in the back, they take a risk but get a chance to hit the more dangerous opponent AND open up the possibility for their friends to safely run past the fighter at the front.

This is entirely based on in game knowledge by an intelligent monster/NPC and has NOTHING to do with metagaming.

[KorvinStarmast]

But if you're talking about enemies that are right in the thick of things and choose to ignore the frontline, then I DO want to know what they believe about the game world that makes them simultaneously a skilled warrior, and a skilled warrior that does not find another skilled warrior a lethal threat.
If they are a skilled and experienced warrior, then they are familiar with their own game world's version of Sun Tzu; The Art of War, or Infanterie Greift An and they know to take out the High Value Unit of the enemy, whomever that is.

Or they are likely to.

And since there are in D&D 5e NPC assassins, whose one round nova damage is scary good versus a sleeping target (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/174944/22566), I have to pull my punches when my PCs do a long rest in Salt Marsh because they (1) have not found the second assassin, and (2) I am trivially able to assassinate any of them in their sleep. (I did a one off with a different player for who made an attempt (as NPC assassin) against Ingo the Drover, and it was an eye opener).

The PCs' hit points vary from high 40's to low 70's. (Sorcerer to Bearbarian). I am tempted to kill one just to reinforce how deadly their surroundings are, but they just left town and are on the road towards the Tameraut's fate adventure. (They can get probably get access to reincarnation from the elven lady ruler /druid up in Silverwood; the local priest does not have level 5 spells, so no raise dead).

Scarlet Brotherhood is getting frustrated with how the party is frustrating their goals

I know that two of the players would probably get bent out of shape over the "OK, tonight, your sleep is interupted by roll initiative."
They have begun sleeping in individual rooms due to being high enough level to afford that ... and none of them uses the Alarm spell as a precaution ...

[Bobthewizard]

Before they start spellcasting, what makes someone "obviously" a cleric? Vs say, a war cleric with a sword and armour, or a superstitious fighter with a holy symbol?

Seems to me that disguise would become very important if every NPC in the world has a hate-on for people who wear robes!

He is an Aerani elf in full priest regalia - mask, tattoos, robes, visible holy symbol. Most Aerani priests don't get into combat. He's going against his church to help this party because he believes in them. I'm not sure a disguise fits his character as he tries to convert people. But NPCs know that a priest makes the fight harder and that all spell casters are more important targets.

The paladin and hexblade usually don't get prioritized early since they just look like soldiers, but if they cast a spell then NPCs sometimes switch to target them. NPCs try to ignore and move around the fighter, but as an echo knight with sentinel, he makes that hard.

The players are using the same tactics - prioritizing spellcasters while trying to get the enemy to focus on the martial characters. It's made for some very dynamic and interesting fights. The pulp in Eberron has been great for this.

[Segev]

Perhaps it may help to portray the argument of "the other side" as I see it. This is not meant to be straw manning nor insulting, but to provide opportunity for those who believe that I am wrong to show me where my understanding of their position is not accurate:

"It makes no sense that somebody would go around the big, strong, burly guy with an axe to get at the squishy wizard behind him. The big, strong, burly guy with the axe is dangerous, so obviously you'd go up and fight him, first. You can't just ignore him. But you CAN just ignore the squishy wizard, even though he's hurling fireballs and ensnaring your allies, taking down your advantage of numbers very quickly. After all, ignoring the big strong burly guy would mean the burly guy has to chase after you to hit you, and that you're not whittling down his wall of meat! The wizard may be faster to take down and do more damage, but you can safely ignore him while you take down the wall of meat because the wall of meat can do damage to you, specifically. Especially since there are fewer of you free to dogpile him or the wizard thanks to the wizard's spells!"

[Psyren]

A lot of people are talking about the guy in the back throwing fireballs, but what about the healer? If every time you hack at the big burly guy with the axe, his wounds close up 6 seconds later, then ignoring his ally who is doing that (assuming you're smart enough to make the connection) is not ignoring the big scary melee threat in favor of an uncertain ranged one, rather it's committing to have the big scary melee threat in your face even longer, which changes the "math" somewhat.

[LudicSavant]

A lot of people are talking about the guy in the back throwing fireballs, but what about the healer?

Whatever form the priority objective takes, it's basically the same thing:

If we're talking about a "skilled warrior" (what Dr. Samurai says he's talking about), then the following applies:


If they are a skilled and experienced warrior, then they are familiar with their own game world's version of Sun Tzu; The Art of War, or Infanterie Greift An and they know to take out the High Value Unit of the enemy, whomever that is.

Or they are likely to.

[Keravath]

A lot of people are talking about the guy in the back throwing fireballs, but what about the healer? If every time you hack at the big burly guy with the axe, his wounds close up 6 seconds later, then ignoring his ally who is doing that (assuming you're smart enough to make the connection) is not ignoring the big scary melee threat in favor of an uncertain ranged one, rather it's committing to have the big scary melee threat in your face even longer, which changes the "math" somewhat.

Actually, if you knock around the big guy with the axe so much that he goes down but then gets up the next round, you are going to make sure the big guy with the axe goes down permanently this round and then go after the healer. Going after the healer when the big guy just gets back up and starts swinging the next turn is a motivation to make sure they really are dead before moving on :)

P.S. I haven't had any encounters with the opponents using healing word yet ... but thinking about it ... I think it would be a great idea for the PCs to see monsters/NPCs popping back up with healing too :) ... and it is a choice the DM can make as they wish to apply death saves for NPCs :) (DMs don't usually bother due to the overhead but if the monsters have a healer in the mix it might really be worthwhile.

[JackPhoenix]

Please outline for me a white room or other scenario where (1) is the correct option over (2). You may set up your environment and your own side as you like, provided you do not invalidate the armorguy and grenadeguy's strategy of having grenadeguy lobbing grenades or shooting individuals with his gun if he needs to support armorguy.

At best, I suspect you could construct the environment such that you cannot get past armorguy due to choke points.

But if there's any way that you CAN go around armorguy, what scenario would you prefer to go start with attacking armorguy than to go and stop grenadeguy from lobbing grenades and taking out multiple people on your side at once?

The obvious answer is a scenario where the grenadeguy doesn't want to kill armorguy too, and can't aim the grenade explosions with 1' precision or shoot accurately enough to ignore the armorguy standing in his way, so you're safe from him as long as you stay near the armorguy and the armorguy lives. But of course, we're talking D&d, so that's not gonna happen.

[Psyren]

Actually, if you knock around the big guy with the axe so much that he goes down but then gets up the next round, you are going to make sure the big guy with the axe goes down permanently this round and then go after the healer. Going after the healer when the big guy just gets back up and starts swinging the next turn is a motivation to make sure they really are dead before moving on :)

Well sure, if you can take the big guy down before he's healed then you should definitely do that. But if you're worried about him being in your face and the reason he continues to be in your face is that there's someone praying in the back and undoing everything you're doing for him not to be in your face, it won't take much intelligence to realize switching might be a better option.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Please tell me there’s at least one “you really need to loosen up” cracks that were made.

Sadly the player wasn't old enough to crack that kind of joke. It was more DORF SMASH.

[Segev]

Sadly the player wasn't old enough to crack that kind of joke. It was more DORF SMASH.

How young was he? (I was making awful puns since I was able to talk, but I do not dispute that it's a 'skill' that is refined with age. Like wine, or milk.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

How young was he? (I was making awful puns since I was able to talk, but I do not dispute that it's a 'skill' that is refined with age. Like wine, or milk.)

He was 7 at the time, and wasn't quite quick on his feet with puns yet. Our family has a great history of puns, so I'm sure he'll grow into it.

[Segev]

He was 7 at the time, and wasn't quite quick on his feet with puns yet. Our family has a great history of puns, so I'm sure he'll grow into it.

Hee! :smallbiggrin: Glad you get to play with your little brother/cousin/other-family-member. Glad he enjoys his time with you and the rest of your family, too.

[Sparky McDibben]

Yeah but the point is that everyone is treating "known threat" as "not lethal".

No, they're reacting rationally to opportunity cost. I have only one weapon, multiple targets, and a big question: can that caster take us all out right away? So they prioritize the unknown threat to focus on the known threat afterward. Not lethal doesn't come into it. They know that fighter's lethal, but they understand how he works. The caster? They've got no idea how their magic works, so they're going to target them first.


Also, it sounds like literally everyone in the game worlds have encountered level 9 casters and have survived them enough to wary of and laser-focused on any caster they come across.

Well, to borrow an example from the real world, how many nuclear weapons have you seen detonate?


No one will ever be surprised to find out what the wizard in the party can do, they already know and they've already got his number.

That's the literal opposite of my point. It's because they don't know what the caster can do that they engage the caster first. The unknown is always scarier than the understood.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hee! :smallbiggrin: Glad you get to play with your little brother/cousin/other-family-member. Glad he enjoys his time with you and the rest of your family, too.

That game's over now, but yeah. I introduced all my little nephews/nieces to D&D. A couple had already been playing a little or had heard of it, but they took to it like fish to water. First game had a bunch of premades, but they were roleplaying seriously within minutes. Pretty soon one of them (age ~12) was running fully homebrew campaigns. My mom (their grandma) made the older ones really cool stuffed-with-wire-articulation dragon plushies (like 2.5' or longer, with massive wingspans. Took her ages) for Christmas. It's been amazing to watch over the last few years.

That first game, the dorf player (then about 5) REALLY REALLY wanted to play, but was too young to really have the patience for things. So we let him be an "awakened squirrel" (just a squirrel, but that could talk). He bit a zombie on the toe (1 damage) and was satisfied. Of course, they were some of the most ruthless, bloodthirsty little monsters I've ever ran with..."ok, we'll pay you for information. And then, afterward, turn around and shank you for the cash back."

Honestly, I think that we adults take things (including the rules) way too seriously. Watching kids play (including older kids) has brought back quite a bit of the joy and wonder of the game.

[Unoriginal]

When the group I DM for went to attack a bandit lair, the bandits who favored ranged wespons all targeted the Paladin.


Why? Because the group had faced some of those bandits before, and the Paladin managed to annihilate one of them with one hit (which caused the others to flee). Meanwhile the bandit leader (who wasn't there for the previous encounter) was more than confident he could take on the other three PCs in melee with only a couple of goons to help, despite them not knowing for sure how tough the other PCs were.

To their credit, they downed the Paladin, even if they could have downed two or maybe three of the other PCs with the attacks that took to down the Paladin, and the bandit leader would likely have been able to beat the other three on his own if it'd been just a standard stat vs stat fight.

[Elder_Basilisk]

It seems there are several questions at play in this thread:

1. What visual and otherwise perceivable cues are there that monsters can use in order to base their actions and strategy?

In this area, armor, weapons, presence or absence of holy symbols, and obvious magical effects have all been proposed. I'll add on more that hasn't been discussed: I would expect that dexterity is visually perceivable on the field at least once a character starts acting. There should be a big difference between watching a guy with 12 dex and a 12 AC move and watching a guy with a 20 dex and 16 AC even though they're both wearing the same armor.

Its also worth highlighting that the PCs may have a personal reputation that enables NPCs to identify them specifically. This should have plusses and minuses. The bandits would probably think better of attacking the heroes of Frostfall keep, but the brother or fellow warrior lodge member of the orc chieftain they defeated there might be personally motivated to kill them. The PCs might also get personal call-outs as up and coming warriors try to make their reputation by killing the heroes. In these situations, tactics may even be personalized knowing that Olga the beserker is weak-willed and that Ausk is really a monk despite his affection of wearing wizard robes.

One other thing to note here is that interpreting basic cues should not necessarily be limited to intelligent NPC opponents. Wolves behave differently in areas where they are hunted and deer and elk often behave differently during hunting season. Even animals can recognize some aspects of human behavior.

2. Whether NPCs should base their tactics on facing other NPCs or on the capabilities of PC classes.

Without question, NPCs should base their tactics on the abilities and actions of PCs. 5th edition is not intended as a simulationist game and explicitly operates off the idea that NPCs don't follow PC rules. But that is a gamist shortcut not a world building feature. What happens away from the table is not determined by the rules for play.

Taking the "Npcs do whatever the DM wants them to" game device and trying to use it to justify the position that NPCs don't know how to fight PCs and should always use inefficient tactics is fundamentally misunderstanding why NPCs and PCs are built differently. NPCs are different because it is a game. They should act like they have experience with PCs because it is a game.

3. Whether NPCs should always fear and avoid opportunity attacks because swords are always potentially lethal and NPCs don't know about hit points.

I think this perspective is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the in-character situation as well as gameplay.

First, from a gameplay perspective, it's bad to insist that NPCs must use fundamentally flawed tactics in game because they don't understand that they're in a game. All that accomplishes is to make the game less interesting. Because it is a tactical game, NPCs should act tactically to some degree or other. Insisting that NPC tactics be based on some weird interpretation of how real world goblins would be more scared of real world swords than real world fireballs is only going to make the tactical aspect less compelling and introduce artificial limitations to what it can represent. You can't use better tactics for hobgoblins of the red Hand than the disorganized of rabble of the Iron Claw orcs if you aren't willing to use tactics that work in the game.

Secondly, opportunity attacks are not fundamentally different from any other attack. The idea that somehow the opportunity attack from a longsword armed warrior is a potentially lethal threat that the goblin won't face in order to get to the wizard is not consistent with the idea that the same goblin is going to just sit there and trade potentially lethal blows with that same warrior. After all, the warrior is going to get a potentially lethal attack or five with that longsword next round if the goblin sticks around. Either the goblin is too scared to face the potentially lethal sword or he isn't. If the goblin is unwilling to risk getting hit by the sword, he's certainly not going to stand next to the fighter and try to stab him with his dagger. If the goblin is willing to risk getting hit by the sword to stab the fighter with his dagger, he should at least consider risking getting hit by the sword to stab the wizard with his dagger.

[Dr.Samurai]

Dredging from my experiences in various PvP games the topic of meta heavily touches upon expectations, available information, and the ability to parse all that out.

Let us consider bandits encountering a party. We’ll first look at the armored warrior bearing symbols of the commonly known justice god.

Available: equipped for melee with backup ranged, wearing plate armor

Expected: could be a paladin or cleric but not yet confirmed

Parse: until proven to be a cleric, treat as a hardened melee combatant

When this warrior casts spirit guardians and wades into melee the bandits will fully react to the cleric. Up until that or a similar point they will be reacting as to a melee unit, with whatever hedging they can fit in against the possibility of a cleric.
In this case, the example has the caster wading into melee, so the point seems moot. There is no need to push through the frontline because the caster is at the frontline already.

But I'm also curious, how do you treat a hardened melee combatant differently to a hardened melee combatant that also casts spells?


Now a sage looking sort in cloth with a well worn staff. Wizards and monks (and bards and etc) are equally well known. Just using Wizard as catch all for simplicity.

Available: sage is currently at a distance, cloth offers no protection.

Expected: probably a wizard, unlikely but possibly a monk

Parse: cloth means easy target. Risk of not attacking wizard first greatly outweighs downside of attacking an out of position Monk.

The bandits open fire on the sage and miss a lot of shots. After a certain point they have seen no magical protection to explain the discrepancy and rightly come to the conclusion that it’s a monk type.

Ok, so, again, we're not really speaking to the issue of pushing through the frontline. These examples are interesting and informative as far as how enemies might perceive/understand who they are facing. But it's not really speaking to the online meta/truism of "the frontline is just blocking us from taking out the real threats".

When the party doesn’t present any obvious targets, it breaks down to positioning and observed performance. Bandit McBanditface doesn’t know that cowled assailant 1 is a cleric, or that cowled assailant 2 is a fighter. He just knows that 2 was overextended and that’s why the bandits mobbed him. And now he knows 1 can heal, so they need to confirm kills or get the healer down - whichever seems easier at the time.
Agreed.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I think part of what could be going on is a misconception related to the context of referenced forum discussions. I don't know what specifically you're referring to but often when people discuss NPC intelligence and tactics it's in the context of building an effective character. And people usually optimize with the assumption that they will face intelligent NPCs. It's easy to build a tank to be effective against really dumb enemies - just max con/dex and other defensive capabilities and stand there. Likewise, you can build a glass cannon and be highly effective against dumb enemies if you have a tank in your party.

But you really want to be effective in all (or at least most) encounters. So if you're a tank, you want to be able to make it harder for smart enemies to ignore you. So you focus on the harder to deal with situations and build around that, rather than focusing on the easy scenarios. So that's what people talk about on forums like this.
It may be helpful if everyone poses my question to the enemies that they believe WILL rush past the frontline, so that I am not inundated with replies explaining to me all the different enemies that won't. As an example, you just now in this comment stated "So if you're a tank, you want to be able to make it harder for smart enemies to ignore you."

What is it about a "smart enemy" that makes them think they can ignore the tank? The tactic is "rush past the frontline and take out the caster". The meta that informs this appears to be "sword strikes don't kill in one blow, unless it is my sword strike going against a caster".

And the NPCs magically know they are facing PCs instead of another NPCs?
No, that's the point. PCs are exceptional and extraordinary. A party of adventurers is an elite strike force. Everyone here arguing with me, whether they say there is a meta or not, has their NPCs behave as experts at fighting elite strike teams and enemy spellcasters of high levels. So unpack that for me and explain to me how the bandits and hobgoblins got there.

But you understand "I will ignore the guy who may turn me into a frog or mind control me or kill my entire party with a huge fiery explosion because there's a tin can with a sword I can try to fight for a half a minute while the mage does his thing"?
See? This assumes polymorph. So the bandits now think that every caster they face can cast polymorph or that there is enough of a possibility that they can cast polymorph that they should target the caster. So is that the case? Where did this idea come from?

Keep in mind that the tactics/strategy of one monster (or PC) will differ a lot from a group of monsters or PCs.
Always. That's why I don't go around telling people unilaterally that tanks will get ignored.

A single opponent might decide to deal with the axe in the face first since there is a significant risk if they try to run past them. If that monster has friends, one might distract the nearby lesser threat while some or all of the others focus on the bigger more distant threat.
Exactly. A lot of the examples are assuming a single enemy, perhaps because when they see me say "why would this person run past the tank" they are imagining that I'm envisioning a single enemy NPC. But in groups, of course someone is going after the casters.

But that's not what the suggestion is in these build threads ever is. The suggestion is that the enemy engaging the tank will ignore him and move on to higher priority targets. Even in this very thread people have suggested that ALL the enemies will rush past and swarm the caster.

Those decisions involve no meta-gaming at all.
Just to clarify, "meta" does not mean "meta-gaming". It's means what are the in-world assumptions that are informing the NPCs tactics. In real life, if a stranger has a knife to my throat, I know I have to be very careful or my life can be over in the blink of an eye. In D&D world, if an NPC has a knife to the rogue's throat, all the PCs know that the rogue is not in immediate lethal danger, the rogue is just Grappled and can escape with an Acrobatics check and Disengage as a Bonus Action.

You see before you a guy wearing plate armor and holding a big sword. Twenty feet behind him is a guy wearing a white dress shirt and slacks, carrying a pistol and lobbing hand grenades. Do you:

Run up to the guy in plate mail and try to stab him with your pocket knife while the guy in back shoots at you and the plate mail guy swings his sword at you while you plink off his plate mail, or
run past the guy with the sword, hoping he can't cut you in half, to take out the guy who's lobbing grenades but that you're pretty sure you can stab with your pocket knife and actually make a difference?
Question 1: Do I have allies going after the grenade lobber?
Question 2: Do I think the grenade lobber is going to shoot the pistol at me while his friend is giving me cover?
Question 3: Is he really going to throw a grenade at me while I am in melee with his friend?
Question 4: Do I really believe I can "actually make a difference" if I reach the guy with the pistol and grenades? Again, if the enemies "know" that attacks from the frontline won't kill them immediately, they should also know that their own attacks won't actually kill the backline immediately either. So what is the plan? Give the pistol guy a point blank shot while I stab at him and his buddy comes up from behind with a sword?

I don't want it to seem like I'm not engaging with your argument, I just don't understand it even from the premise. The monsters do what the players would do in the same situation, they try to survive and they actually know things about the world they live in to inform the choices they make to try and survive. They have risk assessment skills, they know what threatens them and what doesn't.
Thank you for your overall post. I think what you are saying here is obvious, except for "the monsters do what the players would do". That's the question I am asking. What do the monsters know about the game world. Your answer appears to be "whatever the PCs know", which I don't think I agree with, but tracks with the forum mentality. See below:


ETA: I will say that the argument "NPCs should act like PCs since they have the same level of in-world knowledge" is probably flawed, because most parties of PCs don't really act the way most sane people would in-world. For the PLAYERS, (often) the game is fun when the whole party is cooperating as a team to win the encounter, so individual PCs will often take great personal risks in support of broader tactical considerations. Like, if I'm playing a level 10 rogue I'm very likely to dive past a "tank" enemy to get a good shot in at the "mage" enemy behind them, because I know that's the best thing to help us win, and if I take some damage or even get KO'd I can probably trust the other party members to heal me. But an NPC bandit or orc raider in the same tactical situation against the PC party is likely to have very different personal priorities: he probably has less loyal and focused companions, and very likely has less access to healing magic, and maybe most of all, he has to actually physically experience getting stabbed in the gut whereas I as a player just have to write "-8" on a sheet. So I think part of being an exceptional DM is constantly taking stock of each NPC's situation, mindset, and motivations, and reacting accordingly.
I tend to agree with this. I would also just add that it's not obvious to me that enemy NPCs, whether monsters or humanoids, would have the same sort of in depth or intimate knowledge that the PCs do, as the PCs are traveling around the countryside/nation/world/planes and engaging with all types of monsters and magic and treasures, etc. The scope of enemies is likely more limited than that. It doesn't have to be, but I think those would be the exceptions (like a rival adventuring party, or a wizard-turned-lich, etc).

That's all I can reply to at the moment. Will respond to more when I am able. Thanks everyone!

[Segev]

Excellent questions!

Question 1: Do I have allies going after the grenade lobber?You have allies; they are all controlled by the same player (you, OOC), or are otherwise making the same calculations about whether to target the armored guy or the grenadier.

Question 2: Do I think the grenade lobber is going to shoot the pistol at me while his friend is giving me cover?Yes, unless you and/or your allies provide more of a tasty target for his grenades.

Question 3: Is he really going to throw a grenade at me while I am in melee with his friend?Possibly; we're using this to discuss an analogy to 5e D&D, where dropping a fireball precisely enough to get you but not his friend is sometimes a possibility (but not always).

Question 4: Do I really believe I can "actually make a difference" if I reach the guy with the pistol and grenades? Again, if the enemies "know" that attacks from the frontline won't kill them immediately, they should also know that their own attacks won't actually kill the backline immediately either. So what is the plan? Give the pistol guy a point blank shot while I stab at him and his buddy comes up from behind with a sword?Well, if it doesn't make a difference, why are you fighting at all? Maybe you won't one-hit-kill the grenadier, but you have a higher chance of hitting him (probably) and he (probably) has fewer hp. Certainly, if you take down the armored guy first, it will take longer to get their action economy reduced (because he'll go down slower) and that means all the more turns where the grenades and pistol shots are flying.

At least, that's my analysis of why "attack the armored guy when you could run past him to attack the grenadier" seems like poor tactics to me.

[Captain Panda]

Because it's totally unrealistic, which is why I am asking the question in the OP, though I see now I should have said "enemy NPCs" as opposed to "monsters". It sounds less like thoughtful consideration and more like caster supremacy arrogance. So I'm curious how it's justified, because it strikes me as a kamikaze move. And... let's be honest, that's what it is. The enemies/monsters die anyways right? They just die chasing after the caster instead of facing the armored sword-wielding hulk in front of them. This is just a logic equation that people run on the forums non-stop... If frontline, then ignore and if caster, then maintain focus.

"Realistic" behavior depends pretty heavily on what creature you're dealing with. If you want to see what a "realistic" humanoid intelligence team would do against your party? Run some PVP and see how things are played.

It's kind of hard to know where to start here, because I think you're baking a lot of misconceptions into your thought process here.

First, is it dumb for a monster to rush past the armored guys up front to hit the guys in robes behind them? I mean, if the monster is intelligent? Yeah, that's a totally reasonable thing for them to do. The damage of an opportunity attack is not just a meta concept, a monster will presumably know that Johnny Platemail isn't going to kill him in one swing. You classify this as a "kamikaze move," I see it as a totally sensible thing for anything above beast level intelligence to do.

Second, are casters higher priority targets that dudes with swords? Yes. 100%. That isn't just my opinion, that's also the opinion of most optimized groups. If the enemies have a frontline of mooks and a caster, guess who is at the top of the priority list? Casters, and this gets more and more true the higher you go in level, have more ability to influence the outcome of a battle than martials.

Third, there's always this assumption that just gets sort of taken for granted that the casters are soft, squishy and vulnerable. So going back to point one, if the wizard is wearing robes and seems to be made of tissue paper? Totally sensible to target them. If they're wearing half-plate, they're still a more dangerous target than Johnny Platemail, but the idea that a wizard has to be some squishy goober and needs Johnny Platemail in front of him is fallacious in the first place.

If you want to see how intelligent humanoids would react to a team of PCs, it's really simple to see what sort of tactics arise: run some PVP rounds and see. I actually think it's strange how people expect monsters to just herp and derp and behave as though they're idiots who are just there to get their asses beat. The monsters want to win! They should act like it.

[stoutstien]

I think the whole idea of front or back lines is rarely applicable. How often do you have two apposing sides with only one path in which they can meet?

[Lord Raziere]

Well, to borrow an example from the real world, how many nuclear weapons have you seen detonate?


Counterpoint:
how many internets and school systems are there to tell you of this, so that you know without needing to experience it?

a world of adventure and wilderness full of magical secrets lost, rumors and legend isn't exactly the most informative or reliable place to learn.

[LudicSavant]

Counterpoint:
how many internets and school systems are there to tell you of this, so that you know without needing to experience it?

...Like, a lot, actually. I mean, not the literal internet, but canonically, there are about a million and one ways that a culture would learn enough about magic to tell their soldiers a thing or ten about it. This is true in the Forgotten Realms, in Eberron, in Ravnica, etc.

It doesn't matter if you've never seen a gun. It doesn't even matter if your culture doesn't know how to produce one. As soon as your culture encounters one with guns, you start making sure your warriors know about them. And just more generally: Ancient warrior cultures seem to have had a pretty good idea of what they were doing, just generally speaking. Because the ones that didn't tended to get conquered by the ones that did.

And the orcs have been fighting magical elves since time immemorial.

[JackPhoenix]

Ok, so, again, we're not really speaking to the issue of pushing through the frontline. These examples are interesting and informative as far as how enemies might perceive/understand who they are facing. But it's not really speaking to the online meta/truism of "the frontline is just blocking us from taking out the real threats".

You're the only one speaking of such meta. Or that there's meta in the first place.


It may be helpful if everyone poses my question to the enemies that they believe WILL rush past the frontline, so that I am not inundated with replies explaining to me all the different enemies that won't. As an example, you just now in this comment stated "So if you're a tank, you want to be able to make it harder for smart enemies to ignore you."

What is it about a "smart enemy" that makes them think they can ignore the tank? The tactic is "rush past the frontline and take out the caster". The meta that informs this appears to be "sword strikes don't kill in one blow, unless it is my sword strike going against a caster".

Multiple people have repeatedly said nobody "ignores" the tank. Being lower priority target is not the same thing as being ignored.


No, that's the point. PCs are exceptional and extraordinary. A party of adventurers is an elite strike force. Everyone here arguing with me, whether they say there is a meta or not, has their NPCs behave as experts at fighting elite strike teams and enemy spellcasters of high levels. So unpack that for me and explain to me how the bandits and hobgoblins got there.

I'm not sure if there's a point repeating it, but ultimately, NPC mage is not that different from PC wizard. You don't need to know every ability the wizard have to understand that enemy spellcasters = bad news.


See? This assumes polymorph. So the bandits now think that every caster they face can cast polymorph or that there is enough of a possibility that they can cast polymorph that they should target the caster. So is that the case? Where did this idea come from?

Feel free to replace Polymorph with Fireball. Or Sleep. Or Summon Greater Demon. Or Dominate Person. Or... you know, any spell that has more impact on the course of battle than a weapon attack. Or maybe ask someone for Help action, if that'll keep you from missing the point and nitpicking instead.


Always. That's why I don't go around telling people unilaterally that tanks will get ignored.

Yet you've started a thread based on that very premise... without actually providing any examples of people saying just that.


Exactly. A lot of the examples are assuming a single enemy, perhaps because when they see me say "why would this person run past the tank" they are imagining that I'm envisioning a single enemy NPC. But in groups, of course someone is going after the casters.

But that's not what the suggestion is in these build threads ever is. The suggestion is that the enemy engaging the tank will ignore him and move on to higher priority targets. Even in this very thread people have suggested that ALL the enemies will rush past and swarm the caster.

Now we're actually getting somewhere. It may come as a surprise, but people can't read your mind, so they don't know what you're "envisioning". It's hard to respond to a claim that lack not only context, but any relevant information about the build in question or a situation it'll be used in at all. Now, if you actually provide an example of what you're talking about, you may actually get an answer that's more than a general statement or based purely on its author's ideas.


Just to clarify, "meta" does not mean "meta-gaming". It's means what are the in-world assumptions that are informing the NPCs tactics. In real life, if a stranger has a knife to my throat, I know I have to be very careful or my life can be over in the blink of an eye. In D&D world, if an NPC has a knife to the rogue's throat, all the PCs know that the rogue is not in immediate lethal danger, the rogue is just Grappled and can escape with an Acrobatics check and Disengage as a Bonus Action.

Yes, PC's "know" that... I'm sure they'll be be happy with that knowledge when the rogue loses initiative to the NPC, fails the Acrobatics check and gets murdered with a waytoomuchdX damage.


That's the question I am asking. What do the monsters know about the game world.

And it's the question that has been answered: It depends on the setting, campaign and the monster in question. There's no general answer.


a world of adventure and wilderness full of magical secrets lost, rumors and legend isn't exactly the most informative or reliable place to learn.

You don't need to know the exact details of every spell's block to know spellcasters are dangerous. In fact, NOT knowing likely makes them seem more dangerous. You don't know what exactly are you dealing with, and those rumors are likely talking about more impressive effects. Armies destroyed with fire from the skies, hordes of demons summoned, kings controlled by sinister sorcerers. It leads back to the usual casters vs. martials debate. A warrior can do a lot of damage with a weapon. But people understand stabbing things with weapons. They can do it themselves, if less effectively. Even if they hear about some hero fighting and killing a dragon... well, that's impressive, but they have an idea what happened. But spellcasters can do that, and SO MUCH MORE. And you have no way of knowing what exactly can they do, and how they work. Netheril had flying cities. Rain of Colorless Fire wiped out Suel Empire. Karrnath fielded entire armies of undead. That's the stuff of legend, and those are some examples of what magic can do. Even though a single wizard has only fraction of such power, there are so many things they can potentially do... and a lot of them much more horrific than being stabbed with a sword. That's why spellcasters should be seen with warriness. Sure, you know your neighbor's kid who's an apprentice wizard can only make light, repair broken stuff and has really suspicious pet owl, but have you heard about that Elminster guy who's accountable for more dead trees than he deserves? He's blown up an entire city as a collateral damage in an magical duel against an immortal, evil, soul-eating skeleton!

[Elder_Basilisk]

Counterpoint:
how many internets and school systems are there to tell you of this, so that you know without needing to experience it?

a world of adventure and wilderness full of magical secrets lost, rumors and legend isn't exactly the most informative or reliable place to learn.

Given that in the real world, the epic poetry recited by the blind bard and repeated throughout the Mediterranean saw fit to let everyone know that witches could turn men into pigs and that sirens would enchant you to leap to your doom and neither of them were even real, I would expect that a fantasy world where both those things are real would manage to get that kind of info into circulation.

But most people and monsters would probably have firsthand knowledge of something anyway. Except in a few locations in forgotten realms, most people would either have some experience being called up by their lord to fight an invasion, go raiding, or both. Or they did it on their own without being asked. (And the commoners living in peaceful FR lands wouldn't be the kind of monsters/NPCs to end up fighting PCs). They would also have seen the village priest or wizard or an their tribe's shaman or the other tribe's priest, wizard or shaman in a fight--or both. And if the particular monsters or NPCs hadn't, they certainly would have relatives who had. At least in the settings that interest me, the primary difference between the farmer and the soldier is whether or not they decided to go Viking/their lord has called them up for service this year. They're both the same person at a different time. And only the dead know peace. And in the settings that don't interest me, it's still likely true of the tribes and bandits and pirates and mercenaries that PCs might end up fighting.

[Tanarii]

I'll give two examples of engagement with tanks (Fighters) and how my monsters handled it. Both examples include tanks in front of casters behind that had already blasted them with spells.

Half a dozen orcs: tanks physically blocking a 10ft wide passage at the entry to a larger room engaged with 4 Orcs on the Orc front line, with several more behind. 2 Orcs grappled and pulled the tanks out of the way, then the others moved to attack the casters. Two took hits from OAs, one of them was killed, and the Casters ran away from the others and abandoned the tanks to their fate. Tanks were proned and grappled and threatened until they surrendered.

Minotaur: charged in a straight line through the gap 2 tanks left between them, took 2 OA hits, and gored the squishy caster more than 10ft away, slamming them back into a wall and knocking them to 0 hps. Eventually the druid saved the squishies life with a spell and they took the Minotaur down, being careful not to set themselves up 10ft away in a straight line.

[Dr.Samurai]

Just a really quick point I'd like to make, which I alluded to in my previous post: If I control these Bandits, and they're smart enough to spot a wizard, why would they target that group? What bandit has every survived a wizard?
Right. This goes back to my questions earlier; how did we get here, where there is a group of bandits that have defeated 9th level spellcasters enough times to develop a strategy around fighting people that can polymorph you, etc.

The general idea throughout the thread seems to be that NPCs just intrinsically know these things; that they are common knowledge to some degree.


If they are a skilled and experienced warrior, then they are familiar with their own game world's version of Sun Tzu; The Art of War, or Infanterie Greift An and they know to take out the High Value Unit of the enemy, whomever that is.

Or they are likely to.
Sure.

So what does this version of the Art of War have to say about actual... warriors? Because if we stick with Game of Thrones (I won't include the gifs) let's ask Eddard Stark what happens when you turn your back on an armed warrior. Or we could ask Sir Arthur Dayne if turning your back on an armed warrior is wise. Or we could ask that Son of the Harpy that was attacking Barristan Selmy if it's dangerous to have armed warriors behind you. Or what about the Mad King, let's ask him if an armed warrior behind you is a lethal threat or not.

So when the NPCs rush past the frontline, they don't think that a spear is going to impale them in the leg and hobble them for the rest of their lives. The don't think a dagger is going to find its way to their throat. They don't think a spear is going to impale them through the rib cage, and they don't think someone is going to stick a longsword through their back.

The reason for this has generally been "because they know how tough/lucky/armored they are and they know they can survive it". So the next question is "why doesn't this apply to the wizard?" Why does the bandit understand the HP abstraction as "I'm lucky/tough/protected enough to survive some attacks" but thinks that if he reaches the wizard he will, to quote Segev, "actually make a difference"? (read, kill the wizard and turn the tide of the battle). Somehow the bandit thinks "an attack from the armored warrior won't kill me, but an attack from me will kill the wizard". What's the meta that's informing this?

Another question... this version of the Art of War presumably tells everyone how deadly wizards are. So all these bandits and goblins and enemies know that if they face a wizard, they will have to contend with Fireballs and Sleep and Polymorph and Banishment, etc. Very scary stuff; deadly enemies these wizards are. Well, why doesn't the book also explain that when all those enemies rush forward and attack, the Shield spell is going to make every single one of them miss? Why doesn't it explain that the wizard will then use Misty Step to escape that wanna-be kill zone, and then target the neat formation of enemy NPCs with a Fireball and turn it into an actual kill zone?

It seems to me that enemy NPCs know just enough to think "ignore frontline, kill deadly but frail caster", but don't know more than that enough to know that this tactic is going to get them killed anyways. The meta seems like an arbitrary decision, choosing that NPCs know just the right information to make them behave a certain way and be able to call it "tactical".

Another thought; if the PCs are running past the frontline to take down the caster, and the enemies are running past the frontline to take down the caster... then there is no frontline.


2. Whether NPCs should base their tactics on facing other NPCs or on the capabilities of PC classes.

Without question, NPCs should base their tactics on the abilities and actions of PCs. 5th edition is not intended as a simulationist game and explicitly operates off the idea that NPCs don't follow PC rules. But that is a gamist shortcut not a world building feature. What happens away from the table is not determined by the rules for play.

Taking the "Npcs do whatever the DM wants them to" game device and trying to use it to justify the position that NPCs don't know how to fight PCs and should always use inefficient tactics is fundamentally misunderstanding why NPCs and PCs are built differently. NPCs are different because it is a game. They should act like they have experience with PCs because it is a game.
Firstly, no one is trying to justify that NPCs should be inefficient. You and others are taking for granted that rushing past the frontline and targeting the caster is efficient tactics, even though you and I both know that the enemies will wind up dead one way or the other. So the question is why do NPCs believe your method to be the "tactical" route as opposed to engaging with the frontline and allowing their own ranged attackers/casters on the backline to target the PCs (as an example).


3. Whether NPCs should always fear and avoid opportunity attacks because swords are always potentially lethal and NPCs don't know about hit points.

I think this perspective is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the in-character situation as well as gameplay.

First, from a gameplay perspective, it's bad to insist that NPCs must use fundamentally flawed tactics in game because they don't understand that they're in a game.
Yikes... can you remind me... which fundamentally flawed tactic has been presented?

Forum: The most tactical decision is to bum-rush the caster and worry about the frontline later.
Actual Gameplay: Monsters bum-rush the caster to worry about the frontline later, PCs win, again, level up, move on to another location, find loot, win more encounters, etc etc
Forum: So tactics, much sense


All that accomplishes is to make the game less interesting. Because it is a tactical game, NPCs should act tactically to some degree or other.
This is hilarious because in an effort to avoid talking about rushing past the frontline, we've received several great examples of enemies attacking from a distance and using cover, using magic to foil casters, turtling in a defensive position to wait for reinforcements... all PRECISELY to avoid engaging in melee combat.

Whereas the tactic I am asking about is running into melee and simply not caring that there are armored/armed warriors there because you're laser focused on the caster.

The former is more interesting and a tactical game. The latter is playing the game on auto.

Insisting that NPC tactics be based on some weird interpretation of how real world goblins would be more scared of real world swords than real world fireballs is only going to make the tactical aspect less compelling and introduce artificial limitations to what it can represent.
The examples in this thread have proved this to not necessarily be true.


Secondly, opportunity attacks are not fundamentally different from any other attack. The idea that somehow the opportunity attack from a longsword armed warrior is a potentially lethal threat that the goblin won't face in order to get to the wizard is not consistent with the idea that the same goblin is going to just sit there and trade potentially lethal blows with that same warrior. After all, the warrior is going to get a potentially lethal attack or five with that longsword next round if the goblin sticks around.
But the goblin won't kill the wizard in one blow either. The goblin is going to "just sit there and trade" blows with the wizard, except the warrior will also be coming up from behind to trade blows as well. This is the point. What does the goblin think about this that makes it a win condition? Or amazing tactics?

@Segev: If there are allies, then some should go after the casters while the frontline is engaged. So the risk of getting shot or grenaded is less because the caster is being attacked as well. (Though, to bring it back to D&D, I still wonder how many firefights these NPCs have been in and what their general knowledge of magic is concerning cover and AoE and line of sight, etc.) If an enemy had a gun pointed at me, I'd want to keep his ally in between the two of us; the last thing I would want to do is go around his ally and give the gunman a clear shot.

Regarding "making a difference", see my comments above about killing the wizard. I took your comment to mean "you're actually making a difference because you're going to kill the wizard and therefore increase your chances dramatically". The question is "are you really going to kill the wizard though"? Or perhaps better put, "Do your NPCs actually think they are going to kill the wizard that quickly?"

@JackPhoenix: {scrubbed}

[LordShade]

3. Whether NPCs should always fear and avoid opportunity attacks because swords are always potentially lethal and NPCs don't know about hit points.

I think this perspective is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the in-character situation as well as gameplay.

First, from a gameplay perspective, it's bad to insist that NPCs must use fundamentally flawed tactics in game because they don't understand that they're in a game. All that accomplishes is to make the game less interesting. Because it is a tactical game, NPCs should act tactically to some degree or other. Insisting that NPC tactics be based on some weird interpretation of how real world goblins would be more scared of real world swords than real world fireballs is only going to make the tactical aspect less compelling and introduce artificial limitations to what it can represent. You can't use better tactics for hobgoblins of the red Hand than the disorganized of rabble of the Iron Claw orcs if you aren't willing to use tactics that work in the game.

Secondly, opportunity attacks are not fundamentally different from any other attack. The idea that somehow the opportunity attack from a longsword armed warrior is a potentially lethal threat that the goblin won't face in order to get to the wizard is not consistent with the idea that the same goblin is going to just sit there and trade potentially lethal blows with that same warrior. After all, the warrior is going to get a potentially lethal attack or five with that longsword next round if the goblin sticks around. Either the goblin is too scared to face the potentially lethal sword or he isn't. If the goblin is unwilling to risk getting hit by the sword, he's certainly not going to stand next to the fighter and try to stab him with his dagger. If the goblin is willing to risk getting hit by the sword to stab the fighter with his dagger, he should at least consider risking getting hit by the sword to stab the wizard with his dagger.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter, and encapsulates the OP's original question well.

My personal view is that opportunity attacks are fundamentally different from other attacks. Taking an OA without using the Disengage action, to me, is voluntarily lowering my guard against this deadly fighter. That's a recipe for instant and immediate death. If I were DMing, no creature with humanoid intelligence would do this unless it was very confident it could avoid death (it has its own heavy armor or thick skin) or it was very scared (morale broke and everyone is fleeing), or it's a type of monster that has low self-preservation instinct and a mob mentality and is fighting in a group (like gibberlings or potentially kobolds). In the example of a lone orc against a fighter and a wizard, where the orc is already engaged with the fighter, I would have the orc stay there and trade blows, probably attempting some kind of fighting withdrawal. The orc wouldn't rush the wizard unless he thought he could deal with the wizard quickly, and he thought he could survive lowering his guard against the fighter for a moment.

In a group situation, like a few orcs against the fighter and the wizard, I would determine if the orcs could recognize if the wizard was a spellcaster. If they could make this recognition, they would know that casters are dangerous and less skilled in physical combat than warriors, and need to be dealt with quickly. Their commander would quickly shout orders sending a couple to tie up the fighter while the others nabbed the wizard. If the commander was incapacitated or couldn't give orders, the orcs would probably follow the same strategy of tying up the fighter while going for the wizard, but they might do this sub-optimally. Absent leadership, there might be three who go for the fighter leaving the wizard in a 1-on-1, or vice versa.

Separately, I want to make a point about the threat perception of spellcasters. This depends on the setting. I'm DMing an Eberron game, where the basic knowledge of NPCs about spellcasters is very different from how I would run a Forgotten Realms game. In Eberron, the capabilities of spellcasters are widely understood and most people will assume that a random spellcaster can only use cantrips, and maybe a first-level spell. And the majority of these spellcasters don't know any combat magic at all, and are non-threats. Even people familiar with war wizards are not going to expect most of them to use fireballs. And they also won't assume that a war wizard is necessarily an easier target than a fighter, because shield and mage armor are widely-understood forms of combat magic. In this setting, NPCs who recognize that a PC wizard is a spellcaster but don't know who he is by reputation will still assume that he's just a cantrip-spammer until he proves otherwise. And if he uses non-obvious combat magic that they have little familiarity with, like 4th or 5th-level spells, they may not put two and two together for a while.

[Sparky McDibben]

You don't need to know the exact details of every spell's block to know spellcasters are dangerous. In fact, NOT knowing likely makes them seem more dangerous.

Exactly! Thank you!


Forum: So tactics, much sense

Yeah, I'm done with this thread at this point. Explained my point half-a-dozen times, and the good Doctor still managed to misinterpret it.

[Unoriginal]

Because if we stick with Game of Thrones (I won't include the gifs) let's ask Eddard Stark what happens when you turn your back on an armed warrior. Or we could ask Sir Arthur Dayne if turning your back on an armed warrior is wise. Or we could ask that Son of the Harpy that was attacking Barristan Selmy if it's dangerous to have armed warriors behind you. Or what about the Mad King, let's ask him if an armed warrior behind you is a lethal threat or not.

Fun fact: there is no "behind you" in 5e's basic rules.

All characters are "facing" and perceiving at 360 degrees.

Also, 5e isn't Game of Thrones.

[JackPhoenix]

@JackPhoenix: {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[Captain Panda]

Forum: The most tactical decision is to bum-rush the caster and worry about the frontline later.
Actual Gameplay: Monsters bum-rush the caster to worry about the frontline later, PCs win, again, level up, move on to another location, find loot, win more encounters, etc etc
Forum: So tactics, much sense



The party is going to win most encounters, most of the time, and that's by design. Rushing the casters is to add suspense and drama to a fight, and put the caster at risk. The plan of the party is 'beefy boys upfront, spellslingers in back.' The monsters should try to circumvent that plan any way that is possible and within their intelligence. Rushing the casters, especially if the casters are poorly optimized and have low AC, is a good place for them to start.

Also, as Unoriginal said, this isn't Game of Thrones. If you want to play Game of Thrones style, you'll need a totally different system.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think this gets to the heart of the matter, and encapsulates the OP's original question well.

My personal view is that opportunity attacks are fundamentally different from other attacks. Taking an OA without using the Disengage action, to me, is voluntarily lowering my guard against this deadly fighter. That's a recipe for instant and immediate death. If I were DMing, no creature with humanoid intelligence would do this unless it was very confident it could avoid death (it has its own heavy armor or thick skin) or it was very scared (morale broke and everyone is fleeing), or it's a type of monster that has low self-preservation instinct and a mob mentality and is fighting in a group (like gibberlings or potentially kobolds). In the example of a lone orc against a fighter and a wizard, where the orc is already engaged with the fighter, I would have the orc stay there and trade blows, probably attempting some kind of fighting withdrawal. The orc wouldn't rush the wizard unless he thought he could deal with the wizard quickly, and he thought he could survive lowering his guard against the fighter for a moment.
The lone enemy example is weird to me. Even in these examples people in this thread suggest that the obvious course of action is to break away from the fighter (eating an OA) and go after the wizard... the super deadly threatening wizard, mind you, when it's like... surrender? Wouldn't a lone enemy outgunned like this just surrender?

It would have to be a remarkable orc to think to himself "I can move away from this fighter, kill the deadly wizard, all before the fighter can take me down... that'll even the odds".

In a group situation, like a few orcs against the fighter and the wizard, I would determine if the orcs could recognize if the wizard was a spellcaster. If they could make this recognition, they would know that casters are dangerous and less skilled in physical combat than warriors, and need to be dealt with quickly. Their commander would quickly shout orders sending a couple to tie up the fighter while the others nabbed the wizard. If the commander was incapacitated or couldn't give orders, the orcs would probably follow the same strategy of tying up the fighter while going for the wizard, but they might do this sub-optimally. Absent leadership, there might be three who go for the fighter leaving the wizard in a 1-on-1, or vice versa.

Agreed.

Separately, I want to make a point about the threat perception of spellcasters. This depends on the setting. I'm DMing an Eberron game, where the basic knowledge of NPCs about spellcasters is very different from how I would run a Forgotten Realms game. In Eberron, the capabilities of spellcasters are widely understood and most people will assume that a random spellcaster can only use cantrips, and maybe a first-level spell. And the majority of these spellcasters don't know any combat magic at all, and are non-threats. Even people familiar with war wizards are not going to expect most of them to use fireballs. And they also won't assume that a war wizard is necessarily an easier target than a fighter, because shield and mage armor are widely-understood forms of combat magic. In this setting, NPCs who recognize that a PC wizard is a spellcaster but don't know who he is by reputation will still assume that he's just a cantrip-spammer until he proves otherwise. And if he uses non-obvious combat magic that they have little familiarity with, like 4th or 5th-level spells, they may not put two and two together for a while.
I agree.

Yeah, I'm done with this thread at this point. Explained my point half-a-dozen times, and the good Doctor still managed to misinterpret it.
Misinterpret or misunderstood? Because for me, when someone is listing off the crazy spells that a wizard might lob at the enemy, that sounds like "they are familiar with what wizards are capable of".

When you say "No, that's not what I mean, what I mean is that it could be any of those things, they don't know, that's why they have to take them down", it STILL sounds like to me that they are familiar with caster capabilities. Because you're saying "the bandits KNOW that the upper limit of caster potential is like... crazy, and so they have to take casters down real quick". So sure, they won't know exactly what spells are known/prepared, but the fact that they know what higher level spells are and what they do requires, for me, some explanation.

Secondly... "lethal threat" means "lethal" means "will kill you". So to ignore a known "lethal threat" because you don't know what the caster might do seems strange. It's precisely because you know the caster has powerful and threatening spells that you consider the caster a greater threat than a "known lethal threat".

But if you think I'm being unfair, fair enough. I'm trying to get to everyone and we're all having slightly different takes/conversations throughout.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

Hit points aren’t realistic… but they’re a fact of the D&D world.

A 100 HP ogre knows they can take a couple rounds of damage from any ordinary warrior.
A 4 HP commoner knows they can’t.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Also, if the NPCs do win--or even survive by forcing the PCs to retreat--that is most likely how they will do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they will always rush the casters. (And if they do, mobbing the cleric is probably a good primary target at least as often as the wizard). But if will often be a good idea especially if the rest of the party are not-especially-threatening "tanks" who don't have the capability to win on their own.

Every party is different and the optimal tactic will be different against all each one but more often than not, if the other side is trying to protect someone, you should threaten the person they're protecting. "Always geek the wizard first" is more likely to be good strategy than "never provoke opportunity attacks."


The party is going to win most encounters, most of the time, and that's by design. Rushing the casters is to add suspense and drama to a fight, and put the caster at risk. The plan of the party is 'beefy boys upfront, spellslingers in back.' The monsters should try to circumvent that plan any way that is possible and within their intelligence. Rushing the casters, especially if the casters are poorly optimized and have low AC, is a good place for them to start.

Also, as Unoriginal said, this isn't Game of Thrones. If you want to play Game of Thrones style, you'll need a totally different system.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I think this gets to the heart of the matter, and encapsulates the OP's original question well.

My personal view is that opportunity attacks are fundamentally different from other attacks. Taking an OA without using the Disengage action, to me, is voluntarily lowering my guard against this deadly fighter. That's a recipe for instant and immediate death. If I were DMing, no creature with humanoid intelligence would do this unless it was very confident it could avoid death (it has its own heavy armor or thick skin) or it was very scared (morale broke and everyone is fleeing), or it's a type of monster that has low self-preservation instinct and a mob mentality and is fighting in a group (like gibberlings or potentially kobolds). In the example of a lone orc against a fighter and a wizard, where the orc is already engaged with the fighter, I would have the orc stay there and trade blows, probably attempting some kind of fighting withdrawal. The orc wouldn't rush the wizard unless he thought he could deal with the wizard quickly, and he thought he could survive lowering his guard against the fighter for a moment.

I think the key things to realize are that:
1. The hypothetical tank who's hitting for 1d8+3 is not a particularly deadly fighter. In fact, he's a below average fighter. Both players and bad guys will risk things against a below average fighter that they wouldn't try against a reckless attacking raging barbarian with a great axe. Some opportunity attacks matter more than others.

2. The opportunity attack is probably not a recipe for instant death. The attack doesn't gain any extra advantage--it's just an attack. It's more like a boxer who has less reach than his opponent and knows he's going to take a shot as he closes in. It's his job to pick the right moment and close the distance in a way that the extra shot he takes doesn't matter as much as the shots he's going to land. Boxers do it all the time and reach doesn't always prove to be a decisive advantage. In battle historically it was the same way. The spanish Tercios with their swords and bucklers proves to have the advantage against swiss pikes and the Roman legions proved to have the advantage against Carthaginian phalanxes (with the exception of Carrhae).

[Willowhelm]

I see a lot of people (including the OP) agreeing with each other really vehemently while seemingly believing that they are on different sides of some argument.

Dr samurai understands that intelligent npcs will behave intelligently.

A frequent example is that they may prioritise dealing with casters above other PCs that are evading damage (via high ac or other means). I myself have seen this advice many times on the forum and even given it to DMs asking how to cope with high AC characters. It isn’t a straw man and it isn’t an unreasonable thing for npcs to do. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it is.

The question is: what knowledge is driving those npc decisions.

There have been plenty of examples of game-world explanations and also some real-world reasons. Again I don’t think anyone is claiming those are not valid.

Dr Samurai appears to be trying to find some baselines or guidelines as to what the npcs “know” about how combat in their world works and how they know it.

If you reframe it as “how do you do this” then it is an entirely non-controversial question. For some reason, using the vernacular of “meta” seems to have made it more controversial than I believe it was intended to be.

As PCs we often do things like plan around initiative order. Do your npcs have a conception of this too?

We acknowledge there are worthwhile times for healing vs not and judge the cost/benefit on this. There’s an entire active thread on that currently. Do your npcs have those chats around their campfires?

We judge when to upscale our spells vs conserve spell slots. Can they tell if you’ve cast all your 5th level slots? Or if that was an upcast fireball? Do they know you’re just spamming cantrips because you’re out of save or suck options?

We judge the expected damage and damage range of our attack options. Do they have an idea of that range? Do they know how many attacks from a longbow they can absorb?

Do they know their friend will shake off that stun at the end of their next turn? Or have a chance save from that status effect? Do they know they can damage their ally to prompt a save?

Do your npcs have an in-world version of this that explains the mechanics in a way that makes narrative sense? Do they effectively just understand the mechanics precisely? Do they know npcs will be fully healed after a long rest? Short rest?

What is the general level of mechanical combat understanding they can assume to have and how does that tie to in-world experience?

For me “the meta” has always had a meaning of the current builds and counters. So do these goblins know about coffeelocks? Nuclear wizards? Have they heard of all the different subclasses (again, in game-world terms)?

Do your npcs know their longbows fire as far as the PCs? Do they know they can go prone to generate disadvantage to counter the additional damage from a rogue’s sneak attack?

Personally my players are not super tactical and so I am free to have the npcs react purely based on narrative impulses and rarely with optimal tactics.

If they were very tactical and I had to play similarly tactically, some of the decisions I would be making as a DM would be based on game mechanics (even if I could justify them narratively).

Eg. When almost surrounded by 8 giant badgers, they “know” that they’ll take 8 OAs as they try and move away and probably won’t survive. They also “know” they can disengage but they can’t then attack the caster after. But they “know” they can misty step without OAs and still make an attack afterwards. These are tougher (not impossible) to justify as narrative choices because they are directly weighing up action economy and mechanical choices.

This seems like an entirely reasonable topic of discussion to me. Not controversial, no one right answer and plenty of peoples experiences and knowledge to learn from. There’s a lot of range from sensible tactics (translated by the dm into mechanical choices) to optimal mechanical choices (translated by the dm into a reasonable narrative). Which approach do you take and how do you reconcile the two?

[strangebloke]

@dr. samurai, I think this comes down to a question of extent. I don't (think) there's general disagreement that someone who's in melee and has high AC is closer to functioning as a tank than someone in the back line with 15 AC (ignoring summoning for the moment.) You still are in melee, you still do get that opportunity attack if enemies try to get by you. You are still presenting a threat to, say, ranged characters by forcing them to choose disadvantage, inferior weapons, or taking an opportunity attack as they retreat. Depending on terrain, enemy behavior, and other considerations, you might be a very good tank sometimes.

....but only sometimes. You can function as a tank if there's a nice narrow bridge or a bunch of mindless zombies or whatever, but its not your dedicated purpose. You can't tank against clever archer goblins who are always running away, you can't stop a ghoul from randomly deciding the wizard looks tasty and eating them... In short, you can tank, but you are not a tank. "Tanking" means being really tough and forcing or incentivizing enemies to attack you. Kane0 made a thread on this recently, it was quite good.

Some of these effects are "hard" like compelled duel or Crown Paladin's challenge. Other effects are more soft, like a melee rogue who has really scary opportunity attacks, or a unarmed fighter who grapples, but either way if you have features like this, you can tank more often, regardless of what tactics the enemy is using. Hence the expectation that a 'real tank' will have such features.

[Tanarii]

I think the key things to realize are that:
1. The hypothetical tank who's hitting for 1d8+3 is not a particularly deadly fighter. In fact, he's a below average fighter. Both players and bad guys will risk things against a below average fighter that they wouldn't try against a reckless attacking raging barbarian with a great axe. Some opportunity attacks matter more than others.Yep. Worth noting that an un-wounded Orc against a level 1-3 fighter with Str 15-16 takes at least two hits to kill, and probably won't be killed until they're hit 3 times. If one of several of them taking a single hit means they can get in range to try and 2-shot a squishy caster, they would of course take the chance.

And 6 Orcs is a pretty deadly encounter for 4 lvl 2s and still Hard for 4 lvl 3s.

Edit: Also worth noting, players have their PCs do exactly the same thing. Which is great ... it means the players and the DM are both in sync with both the resolution layer and the resulting in-universe layer.

[Unoriginal]

Game of Thrones is a live-action show with choreographed fights with results solely depending on the needs of the scenario, with the additional goals of looking entertaining and providing enough drama for the audience, and with the limits of the performers' real-life limitations and of how much means the productions is willing/able to put in this particular fight. It is also near-universaly considered poorly choreographed for the most part, especially in the latter half.

In one episode, not wearing plate armor results in the death of a character against far inferior opponents. In another, a bare-chested man can attack an armed, ready to fight group and be victorious. In one episode, turning your back at an enemy means losing. In another, a combatant can do it and suffer nothing but a bloody lip.

And so on, and so on.

Dungeons & Dragons 5e is a game, with rules. Some of those rules state that a character will not be surprised (past the first turn), or turning their back to an enemy who's attacking them and such unaware of the attack. Other of those rules state that once they're past a certain threat level, individuals are likely to survive one attack or more from melee weapons, due to a variety of factors.

It is a completely different paradigm than a scripted show.

[LordShade]

Well said, Willowhelm.

I'll offer my thoughts to some of your questions. I'll also add that my answers might be different if DMing 2e Forgotten Realms, vs. 5e Eberron as I am right now.

I'm a more "simulationist" DM. I hate the 5e encumbrance system and exploration rules. The first thing I did for my Eberron campaign was to Google "realistic Eberron population numbers and distances," because the 3e figures are so far off they just don't make any sense to me. When confronted with an in-game situation I don't know how to handle, I start with a real-world analogy.

In my Eberron, civilized NPCs who live in cities are basically knowledgeable of the mechanics of 1st and 2nd level spells. The proportion of people who have been duped by a Friends cantrip at some point in their life is roughly the same as the proportion of real-world people who have been cheated on by a romantic partner--my real world analogy to make sense of the frequency. They also know it wears off after a while. People who have been charmed by Charm Person are rarer, but most people know someone it's happened to. People know Invisibility, Disguise Self and Alter Self are things people can do and may have even seen these spells used at an entertainment event. Most people wish they could have an Unseen Servant help them with their housework. They know Concentration is a thing and breaking it is a good way to deal with someone who is maintaining an annoying spell. Most people won't have direct experience with 3rd-level spells, but it depends on the spell. I imagine a lot of people in the Eldeen Reaches know how Plant Growth works.

Trained soldiers are familiar with combat magic. I can imagine a Thrane drill sergeant explaining how the common offensive cantrips and 1st-2nd level spells that Aundair's wandslingers use work. "Firebolts can burn! If he's shooting fire rays, get away from dry hay and oil barrels!" Soldiers also understand roughly how dangerous they are--a direct hit from a Firebolt will kill you, but Acid Splash isn't quite as lethal. They also know that 3rd-level spells exist, but not every soldier has actually seen one used. The same drill sergeant will certainly instruct his men on how to deal with fireballs, lightning bolts and stinking clouds. But every soldier might not see one on active duty. I can imagine a senior Silver Flame pyromancer demonstrating a real fireball for the troops so they can see it for real, and have them practicing their Dexterity saving throws ("stop, drop, and roll") against illusionary fireballs.

4th- and 5th-level spells are considered rare in Eberron, by canon. I imagine that drill sergeants don't bother to instruct the soldiers on the specifics of these. Instead, Thrane's military intelligence knows that Aundair's 36th Dragoons has at least two veteran battlemages capable of casting Ice Storm. Any unit going up against the 36th Dragoons will receive an intelligence briefing on how Ice Storm works and what the countermeasures are. If they know the identities of the battlemages, those people will be priority targets for Thrane's archers.

6th and higher spells are basically unheard of outside of named NPCs. No regular soldier has any idea what a Forcecage is. If you told people that Mass Suggestion was possible by a powerful mage, they'd believe you, but they have only heard of effects this powerful in stories, and they don't know whether to believe the stories or not.

Bandits know some of the above, or all if they were soldiers. Swampers or ogres in Droaam know combat magic is a thing, but don't really know any of the specifics. And in my Eberron, arcane magic users don't really look any different from regular people other than carrying wands and pouches of spell components. They wear clothes like this: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1870-1879/

My PCs are in Xen'drik right now, and one is an unarmored necromancer. Vulkoori drow who encounter the party are likely to assume that the necromancer (who wears normal clothes, not mage robes) is just another foreign scholar or rich guy being escorted by his bodyguards. He'll be robbed and ransomed after they deal with his armed and armored entourage. They probably know enough about Animate Dead to know that someone is controlling the zombies, but they have no idea who. Only after he starts casting spells will they realize he's a threat.

[LordShade]

Yep. Worth noting that an un-wounded Orc against a level 1-3 fighter with Str 15-16 takes at least two hits to kill, and probably won't be killed until they're hit 3 times. If one of several of them taking a single hit means they can get in range to try and 2-shot a squishy caster, they would of course take the chance.

And 6 Orcs is a pretty deadly encounter for 4 lvl 2s and still Hard for 4 lvl 3s.

Edit: Also worth noting, players have their PCs do exactly the same thing. Which is great ... it means the players and the DM are both in sync with both the resolution layer and the resulting in-universe layer.

So I have a different take on this. In my conception, the unwounded Orc doesn't know that he can survive at least two hits. I think this is the core of what Dr Samurai is asking. What do the NPCs know, and how do they know it?

When I DM, the Orc doesn't have any conception of his own HP. He knows that one clean hit from an experienced warrior can kill him, and if he turns his back on the experienced warrior, there's a chance he might just die. Now part of the OA question comes down to what the OA represents. Is it literally turning your back on the fighter and giving him a golden opening, or is it just a sloppy, hasty, undisciplined combat withdrawal? If it's the latter, I can accept that an Orc might willingly do a sloppy disengage to get to the mage because Boss Gurlbak ordered him to. If it's the former, I can't imagine the Orc doing that under any circumstances other than a fear-based morale break.

The difference might be the Minotaur who charged through 2 PCs earlier in this thread (was that you Tanarii?). As a DM, I'd imagine that the Minotaur does have a conception of his HP, or at least, the Minotaur isn't afraid of the same things that an Orc is afraid of. The minotaur might be willing to bullrush through two warriors, knowing that it can absorb some blows and still live.

[Willowhelm]

Game of Thrones is a live-action show with choreographed fights with results solely depending on the needs of the scenario, with the additional goals of looking entertaining and providing enough drama for the audience, and with the limits of the performers' real-life limitations and of how much means the productions is willing/able to put in this particular fight. It is also near-universaly considered poorly choreographed for the most part, especially in the latter half.

In one episode, not wearing plate armor results in the death of a character against far inferior opponents. In another, a bare-chested man can attack an armed, ready to fight group and be victorious. In one episode, turning your back at an enemy means losing. In another, a combatant can do it and suffer nothing but a bloody lip.

And so on, and so on.

Dungeons & Dragons 5e is a game, with rules. Some of those rules state that a character will not be surprised (past the first turn), or turning their back to an enemy who's attacking them and such unaware of the attack. Other of those rules state that once they're past a certain threat level, individuals are likely to survive one attack or more from melee weapons, due to a variety of factors.

It is a completely different paradigm than a scripted show.

I’m not sure what this was intended to convey but i believe it is highlighting the OP’s area of inquiry.

Dnd is a game and behaves a certain way. It isn’t supposed to simulate “real world” behaviour or “game of thrones” scripted outcomes.

It is a different paradigm.

BUT posts are made regularly which make calls to “realism” and the DM can be making choices to heighten tension and adjust consequences based on the narrative or rule of cool or what seems cinematic etc etc - much like the “logic” of a scripted show.

So… when you play, what paradigm are the npcs using? Do they know how the game works? Are they responding “realistically”? Or do they behave like characters in an epic saga? Heroic fantasy or grim dark world?

In other words - “ What Meta do the Monsters Operate Under?”

The argument was never “dnd is GoT” or “dnd should be GoT” or anything like that.

[Witty Username]

So, the question I will pose is, how threatening are armored dudes with weapons?
This will obviously depend on the monster so let us go with an Ogre.
An Ogre has 59 hp, and could easily take a half-dozen attacks from traditional weapons before factoring in AC. A concern in the broad sense, but the threat is a step or two away from immediate.
Now, an Ogre is also unlikely to be that discriminating on targets. The dividing line would be if a humanoid demonstrates something unusual, multiple attacks or something like spellcasting. This increases the target priority but also is indicative of individuals with high HP which will be harder to eliminate from a fight.
This is an example of an enemy that is unlikely to bypass a front line, kinda, Ignoring a fighter is unlikely. Grab and toss off a hillside or into a pit, possibly.
Now, a similar enemy, a Balgura. 68 HP so again over a half-dozen weapon attacks, higher AC but more importantly climb, running leap, and invisibility. If a backline character pisses them off, the will get there, and wreck shop. Now, what would aggro a balgura, trying to interfere with hitting stuff, or alot of damage it doesn't resist, like a spirit guardians or smite or something.
Both of these are examples of brutes, enemies that the frontline's primary concern is to be threatening enough to draw attention, Opportunity attacks are unlikely to affect decision making of these monsters. It also touches on abilities that allow monsters to bypass a frontline.
Shadows are another example, with amorphous and stealth to slip around targets, but also have an incentive to attack low strength targets beyond normal tactical considerations.

This is the meta of monsters:
Who is a threat?
How does the monster reach them?
What kinds of enemies are the monster encouraged to attack?

Now, this opens the question, how aware are monsters aware of their own HP? Does a Scarecrow know how unimportant an average slashing weapon is to its survival. I would say so, or at the very least, every player plays that PCs are aware of their own HP, so it is only fair for monsters to do so as well.

[qube]

What Meta do the Monsters Operate Under?I DM like a movie maker. Their meta is dependant on the monster, in-game situation, the narative importance of the combat, ...

And for the record, yes, that means my monsters will sometimes 'metagame' and attack the tank instead of a more optimal target. But that in essence is me as DM compensating for the limits & flaws of the system. It's not because I as DM can compensate for a problem, that said problem doesn't exist in the system.


But the way this forum talks about it, this is just the way all encounters go.Typically, that's because of context.

Consider that you don't "win" 7 encounters if you died 3 times - you "win" if you died 0 times. Simplified, this means a tank needs to tank 7 out of 7 times. If you're only able to tank the 4 stupid zombie encounters, but fail at the other 3 tactical encounter ... I mean, congratulations, but that's still a fail.

[Tanarii]

So I have a different take on this. In my conception, the unwounded Orc doesn't know that he can survive at least two hits. I think this is the core of what Dr Samurai is asking. What do the NPCs know, and how do they know it?

When I DM, the Orc doesn't have any conception of his own HP. He knows that one clean hit from an experienced warrior can kill him, and if he turns his back on the experienced warrior, there's a chance he might just die.
Then IMO you need to put some house rules into effect, or use a different more dangerous rule set, like Warhammer. Because there's a mismatch between the resolution layer and the in-universe layer.

[Xervous]

On hardened melee unit vs hardened unit with spells. Full plate wearer specifically.

For enemies capable of such reasoning, they are probably aware of the following. Fighters, Paladins, specific clerics, and one? type of artificer are the obvious candidates for full plate. Among those only clerics possess an array of significant ranged spellcasting options, and clerics will be displaying a holy symbol for casting. Of the likely candidates for full plate, there is a strong bias towards martial potency, though martial potency is mostly exclusive with ranged casting potency.

Melee potency and caster status are initially unknown. Against those not displaying holy symbols the best bet is to stay away until there’s no better play than to engage in melee. Presence of holy symbols may lead to a looser formation, more units breaking line of sight depending on what clerics are known for. Once the ‘cleric’ is confirmed, or the armored unit demonstrates very poor melee capabilities, the expected risks of closing to melee go down a great deal. Whether or not that means the bandits target the armored unit over the cloth wearer or the 300ft out of position guy just depends on more particulars than we can pin down here.

As my mind drifts to wesnoth comparisons, the armored unit is probably a high durability and high melee 1v1 efficiency unit that wants to trade swings with units it out values on those metrics. If there are no better targets you may try to whittle it down with range. If you don’t have comparable or better frontliners, or the burst capability to eliminate it there’s little reason to sacrifice good positioning to engage the armored unit.

[Sneak Dog]

Consider that you don't "win" 7 encounters if you died 3 times - you "win" if you died 0 times. Simplified, this means a tank needs to tank 7 out of 7 times. If you're only able to tank the 4 stupid zombie encounters, but fail at the other 3 tactical encounter ... I mean, congratulations, but that's still a fail.

If one is to build a tank character, their first duty is to figure out how to get the enemy's attention away from their allies and onto them. Only after that, does one figure out how to survive that attention. It's easy to lose sight of the first step...


So I have a different take on this. In my conception, the unwounded Orc doesn't know that he can survive at least two hits. I think this is the core of what Dr Samurai is asking. What do the NPCs know, and how do they know it?

When I DM, the Orc doesn't have any conception of his own HP. He knows that one clean hit from an experienced warrior can kill him, and if he turns his back on the experienced warrior, there's a chance he might just die. Now part of the OA question comes down to what the OA represents. Is it literally turning your back on the fighter and giving him a golden opening, or is it just a sloppy, hasty, undisciplined combat withdrawal? If it's the latter, I can accept that an Orc might willingly do a sloppy disengage to get to the mage because Boss Gurlbak ordered him to. If it's the former, I can't imagine the Orc doing that under any circumstances other than a fear-based morale break.

The difference might be the Minotaur who charged through 2 PCs earlier in this thread (was that you Tanarii?). As a DM, I'd imagine that the Minotaur does have a conception of his HP, or at least, the Minotaur isn't afraid of the same things that an Orc is afraid of. The minotaur might be willing to bullrush through two warriors, knowing that it can absorb some blows and still live.

If you have to ignore the rules to make sense of the world, the rules are doing a poor job of portraying the world. That's why I'm not a fan of just ignoring hit points. Use them. Make sense of the world with them. If that means orcs are aware they need several ordinary attacks with a sword to fall over dead, then great. Orcs may think themselves nearly invincible and rush the druid likely to entangle them all soon. Because then volleys of arrows can pick them off one by one. Annoying elfs.

[stoutstien]

There is also the paradigm that forms when you have any conflicts of tactics between team player and monster. Even if team monster is acting under the most rudimentary information staying away from the individuals who wants to be close and get close to those who want to maintain a distance is usually the go to plan until something forces that to change. That is why a lot of the quintessential mechanics that are designed for the big tough guy to protect others can sometimes activity be detrimental to that goal. After the first round of combat is over who is going to want to be near the raging barbarian with the sentinel feat or the cleric casting SG? At least in the cleric's case they have some movement restrictions in play.

If this isn't addressed it doesn't matter what everyone is wearing or the level of knowledge sentient NPC have regarding the PCs.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Willowhelm: Thank you very much for that post. I'm not always the best at putting my thoughts to words so I appreciate your comments.


Hit points aren’t realistic… but they’re a fact of the D&D world.

A 100 HP ogre knows they can take a couple rounds of damage from any ordinary warrior.
A 4 HP commoner knows they can’t.
Thanks JNA. So this comment made me think of something that occurred to me when watching Critical Role. There's a funny scene where Grog walks up to the group after an encounter and calmly asks "Does this look bad?" and removes his hand from his torso to reveal a giant gaping wound and exposed ribs. I thought to myself, "Do other people roleplay wounds like this, since the rules allow for it?"

In other words, PCs can take all sorts of damage and famously don't suffer consequences until they drop to 0. DMs and players could, if they wanted, describe their characters as suffering giant gashes and having chunks of flesh ripped out, etc. There's no "bleeding" mechanic, and the healer is just going to make those wounds go away anyways (so will a short rest).

We've been talking about the HP abstraction in other threads and in this thread as well, and it seems to me that this style of description would fit the "monsters don't care about an OA" style of play much better. I'll continue on this thought below as Tanarii makes a point about orcs as well.

I think the key things to realize are that:
1. The hypothetical tank who's hitting for 1d8+3 is not a particularly deadly fighter. In fact, he's a below average fighter. Both players and bad guys will risk things against a below average fighter that they wouldn't try against a reckless attacking raging barbarian with a great axe. Some opportunity attacks matter more than others.

2. The opportunity attack is probably not a recipe for instant death. The attack doesn't gain any extra advantage--it's just an attack. It's more like a boxer who has less reach than his opponent and knows he's going to take a shot as he closes in. It's his job to pick the right moment and close the distance in a way that the extra shot he takes doesn't matter as much as the shots he's going to land. Boxers do it all the time and reach doesn't always prove to be a decisive advantage. In battle historically it was the same way. The spanish Tercios with their swords and bucklers proves to have the advantage against swiss pikes and the Roman legions proved to have the advantage against Carthaginian phalanxes (with the exception of Carrhae).

Yep. Worth noting that an un-wounded Orc against a level 1-3 fighter with Str 15-16 takes at least two hits to kill, and probably won't be killed until they're hit 3 times. If one of several of them taking a single hit means they can get in range to try and 2-shot a squishy caster, they would of course take the chance.

So I have a different take on this. In my conception, the unwounded Orc doesn't know that he can survive at least two hits. I think this is the core of what Dr Samurai is asking. What do the NPCs know, and how do they know it?

When I DM, the Orc doesn't have any conception of his own HP. He knows that one clean hit from an experienced warrior can kill him, and if he turns his back on the experienced warrior, there's a chance he might just die. Now part of the OA question comes down to what the OA represents. Is it literally turning your back on the fighter and giving him a golden opening, or is it just a sloppy, hasty, undisciplined combat withdrawal? If it's the latter, I can accept that an Orc might willingly do a sloppy disengage to get to the mage because Boss Gurlbak ordered him to. If it's the former, I can't imagine the Orc doing that under any circumstances other than a fear-based morale break.

Then IMO you need to put some house rules into effect, or use a different more dangerous rule set, like Warhammer. Because there's a mismatch between the resolution layer and the in-universe layer.
Ok, so this was an interesting exchange. I think LordShade and I are of like mind on this issue, and I think singling out orcs sort of helps demonstrate exactly what we're talking about.

An orc has 13 AC and 15hp. They deal 1d12+3 damage with their Greataxe, meaning they can one-shot a fighter with a good roll on their damage (a barbarian even if the barbarian isn't raging).

A fighter at level 1 with Dueling is dealing 1d8+5 damage. A raging barbarian with a greataxe is dealing 1d12+5 when raging. The barbarian could one-shot the orc on a good roll. The fighter could potentially kill the orc with two good hits.

Is this information "known" to the orc? Is it aware that it is 1 or 2 strikes away from death? Because if it is, how can it possibly think to ignore or move past the frontline and go for the caster? The barbarian could kill it with just one attack, including an OA. The orc probably knows this because the orc can do the exact same thing. Meanwhile, if the fighter lands 1 hit on his turn, then the OA could be lethal to the orc as well. When we get a little further from this (enemies with more HP), it isn't so clear cut, but there is still the question of "how resilient/vulnerable does the monster consider itself?".

Contrast this with a minotaur that has over 70hp, and is not an attack or two away from death. I can easily see a minotaur barreling through a frontline to get to a caster (such as in Tanarii's example). Because the attacks are akin to Gimli's throwing axe when he chucks it at the cave troll; more of a nuisance until the attacks begin to pile on.


Game of Thrones is a live-action show with choreographed fights with results solely depending on the needs of the scenario, with the additional goals of looking entertaining and providing enough drama for the audience, and with the limits of the performers' real-life limitations and of how much means the productions is willing/able to put in this particular fight. It is also near-universaly considered poorly choreographed for the most part, especially in the latter half.

In one episode, not wearing plate armor results in the death of a character against far inferior opponents. In another, a bare-chested man can attack an armed, ready to fight group and be victorious. In one episode, turning your back at an enemy means losing. In another, a combatant can do it and suffer nothing but a bloody lip.

And so on, and so on.

Dungeons & Dragons 5e is a game, with rules. Some of those rules state that a character will not be surprised (past the first turn), or turning their back to an enemy who's attacking them and such unaware of the attack. Other of those rules state that once they're past a certain threat level, individuals are likely to survive one attack or more from melee weapons, due to a variety of factors.

It is a completely different paradigm than a scripted show.
I love the implication that turning your back on an armed warrior is deadly because the writers simply wrote it that way, as if I'm using Game of Thrones not simply as an aid to demonstrate my point, but as the holy bible for how things are in the world.

@LordShade - I too love Eberron, and I am tracking your whereabouts now so I can force you to DM for me. I agree with your post concerning Eberron and what people may or may not know about magic; I think your take is very thoughtful. At the end, you say Only after he starts casting spells will they realize he's a threat. and I think this is what matters a lot with "what do enemies know". Because, to go back to the example of the Minotaur, what does it know about casters? Has the minotaur tanked a couple of Magic Missiles, shrugged off a Sleep spell, and resisted a Cause Fear? Or resisted Levitate and Blindness/Deafness and Reduce? Maybe the worse it has experienced is getting Restrained by Web and some cantrip spamming. I mean... the minotaur is still alive, which counts for something. It could look at casters as puny tricksters with weak magic, as opposed to hyper-lethal vectors. I'm not saying this is the case all the time but there has to be either information spreading everywhere, or the enemies must have prior experience and have survived it to justify the mage-slaying squad style in my opinion.

I tend to think that the threat becomes obvious once the PCs and enemies have engaged and the caster has started casting some spells. I don't assume caster threat level is a common knowledge type of thing unless there is a reason that the enemies know about casters and their spells. That's why my focus has been on moving away from an adjacent frontliner and taking an OA, as opposed to all the examples we received where the enemies begin the combat by focusing on the back line immediately (which makes sense if everyone begins combat knowing that the most lethal threat is the caster).

[Elder_Basilisk]

The orc can possibly think of provoking an opportunity attack because he is not a coward and risking death is necessary to have a chance to win a battle. If he weren't willing to risk death, he wouldn't be fighting in the first place.

If he's not willing to risk an opportunity attack which might not hit him at all and probably won't kill him if it does in order to get into position to help his tribe or warrior society kill their enemies, then how is he willing to stay in battle with the same warrior who is going to make an attack exactly like the opportunity attack next round? How is he willing to charge a formation of militia with pikes? How is he willing to cross a glacis to reach the rough palisade of a human village with a ladder, exposing himself to multiple rounds of arrow fire without cover or stand holding a ram at the gate of a baron's castle?

Risking an opportunity attack is not some uniquely dangerous activity that the orc would never do. Orc raiders, bandits, and nearly every foe that the PCs will face regularly do things more dangerous than provoking a single opportunity attack from a below average warrior. I'm not saying it's necessarily trivial. It is a risk and the orc won't do it if he doesn't have a good reason (like stopping the wizard/archer/shaman/whatever), but if provoking an opportunity attack falls into the "too dangerous--the orc would never even consider it" category then that orc stayed home and farmed pigs rather than risking his life for gold and glory raiding the settlements of other races.

[Tanarii]

Ok, so this was an interesting exchange. I think LordShade and I are of like mind on this issue, and I think singling out orcs sort of helps demonstrate exactly what we're talking about.

An orc has 13 AC and 15hp. They deal 1d12+3 damage with their Greataxe, meaning they can one-shot a fighter with a good roll on their damage (a barbarian even if the barbarian isn't raging).

A fighter at level 1 with Dueling is dealing 1d8+5 damage. A raging barbarian with a greataxe is dealing 1d12+5 when raging. The barbarian could one-shot the orc on a good roll. The fighter could potentially kill the orc with two good hits.Alas poor Protection and Defense Styles! I knew them, Horacio.


Is this information "known" to the orc? Is it aware that it is 1 or 2 strikes away from death? Because if it is, how can it possibly think to ignore or move past the frontline and go for the caster? The barbarian could kill it with just one attack, including an OA. The orc probably knows this because the orc can do the exact same thing. Meanwhile, if the fighter lands 1 hit on his turn, then the OA could be lethal to the orc as well. When we get a little further from this (enemies with more HP), it isn't so clear cut, but there is still the question of "how resilient/vulnerable does the monster consider itself?"?I'd assume they're aware they can usually take a few 'hits' and survive, against humans and goblins and even other Orcs. Also Orcs are very aggressive. If it's a choice between one of your team taking a single 'hit' from a the guy that you're having trouble 'hitting' and that only 'hits' back like everything you've experience, or the guy you just saw one shot two of your allies, which is the saner decision? If you've seen how dangerous your own casters are in battle, you might even react to a simple cantrip being cast that didn't kill when it hit.

Of course, Orcs also aren't necessarily sane. :smallamused:

For whatever value of 'hit' you want hits and hit points to represent. You don't have to go full simulation in-world for the resolution layer based tactics to make sense, you can keep the in-world part abstract too.

[Dr.Samurai]

The orc can possibly think of provoking an opportunity attack because he is not a coward and risking death is necessary to have a chance to win a battle. If he weren't willing to risk death, he wouldn't be fighting in the first place.

If he's not willing to risk an opportunity attack which might not hit him at all and probably won't kill him if it does in order to get into position to help his tribe or warrior society kill their enemies, then how is he willing to stay in battle with the same warrior who is going to make an attack exactly like the opportunity attack next round? How is he willing to charge a formation of militia with pikes? How is he willing to cross a glacis to reach the rough palisade of a human village with a ladder, exposing himself to multiple rounds of arrow fire without cover or stand holding a ram at the gate of a baron's castle?

Risking an opportunity attack is not some uniquely dangerous activity that the orc would never do. Orc raiders, bandits, and nearly every foe that the PCs will face regularly do things more dangerous than provoking a single opportunity attack from a below average warrior. I'm not saying it's necessarily trivial. It is a risk and the orc won't do it if he doesn't have a good reason (like stopping the wizard/archer/shaman/whatever), but if provoking an opportunity attack falls into the "too dangerous--the orc would never even consider it" category then that orc stayed home and farmed pigs rather than risking his life for gold and glory raiding the settlements of other races.
The orc can kill the fighter with one blow. The fighter is a lethal threat; if he lands an OA and then takes his turn after the orc kills the wizard, the fighter can kill the orc.

It's not about cowardice, it's about what makes sense.

The orc is going after the wizard because the wizard is lethal. That's according to all of you and that makes sense. The fighter and barbarian are also lethal to the orc and the orc can dispatch them with 1 attack.

But you're saying "Instead of killing the fighter and then chasing down the wizard, the orc is going to invite an attack that deals 67% of his HP in damage and go straight for the wizard". Both of these paths lead to death.

This is why the question of "What do the monsters know?" is so important. Because it's very easy to say "the OA might not even hit the orc and even if it does it might not kill him". But we don't think "the Fire Bolt might not hit the orc and even if it does it CAN'T kill him" or "the Magic Missile auto-hits but the orc shrugs it off and still kills the fighter/barb/wizard/etc".

And even when we say "the fighter can kill the orc in two hits" does the orc know that precise information? Does he know if the fighter crits he could potentially die, or does he know that probably the fighter won't kill him?

Because, to repeat a sentiment I made before, it sounds like what the orc knows is very curated; it knows that Sleep will knock it out without a saving throw, and the fighter will require two hits with average rolls to take it down. Therefore, the math is easy; move past the fighter and take down the wizard.

[ender241]

The orc can kill the fighter with one blow. The fighter is a lethal threat; if he lands an OA and then takes his turn after the orc kills the wizard, the fighter can kill the orc.

It's not about cowardice, it's about what makes sense.

The orc is going after the wizard because the wizard is lethal. That's according to all of you and that makes sense. The fighter and barbarian are also lethal to the orc and the orc can dispatch them with 1 attack.

But you're saying "Instead of killing the fighter and then chasing down the wizard, the orc is going to invite an attack that deals 67% of his HP in damage and go straight for the wizard". Both of these paths lead to death.

This is why the question of "What do the monsters know?" is so important. Because it's very easy to say "the OA might not even hit the orc and even if it does it might not kill him". But we don't think "the Fire Bolt might not hit the orc and even if it does it CAN'T kill him" or "the Magic Missile auto-hits but the orc shrugs it off and still kills the fighter/barb/wizard/etc".

And even when we say "the fighter can kill the orc in two hits" does the orc know that precise information? Does he know if the fighter crits he could potentially die, or does he know that probably the fighter won't kill him?

Because, to repeat a sentiment I made before, it sounds like what the orc knows is very curated; it knows that Sleep will knock it out without a saving throw, and the fighter will require two hits with average rolls to take it down. Therefore, the math is easy; move past the fighter and take down the wizard.

In this scenario, you're right. It probably doesn't make sense for an orc facing a level 1 party to run past the fighter to go for the wizard. Because at level 1, a fighter honestly probably is just as much of a threat as a wizard.

I think the flaw in a lot of arguments I see being made here is that people are taking very specific examples and trying to use them to prove a universal truth. There is no universal truth about how enemies will act in a given encounter. Depending on their intelligence, their goals, past experience, how the fight is going so far, environmental factors, etc. the enemies will behave differently.

You're absolutely right that a good DM should consider what the NPCs know and not metagame. But that doesn't mean that the NPCs can't know enough to make clever tactical decisions, which may include rushing past the frontliners to try to take out who they deem to be a greater threat.

In my opinion, when a DM has an NPC act in combat, the thought process should look something like this:

1) Is the NPC dumb (most beasts, for example)? If yes, attack the nearest/biggest PC, probably. Unless badly hurt, then maybe try to run away. If not dumb, proceed to 2.

2) Is there a specific goal of this NPC or the NPCs in general? For example, if Player A has the McGuffin that the BBEG that the NPC works for wants, maybe they go after player A. If there's nothing of this sort, proceed to 3.

3) Have the NPC determine who the biggest threat is. Here's where, to your point, the DM should be careful not to metagame. Because the DM obviously knows way more than the NPC does. But, the NPC still has past knowledge that may inform them (possibly correctly, possibly not). Possibly some knowledge from before this fight, or possibly just what they've seen from this fight so far. If the Wizard fireballed or hypnotized half their buddies in round 1, or if they simply see the the wizard's staff and know that spellcasters are powerful, they may decide the wizard is the biggest threat. If the fighter landed a big crit in round 1 and the wizard used a save or suck spell that fails they may decide that the fighter is the biggest threat. It all depends on what they know and what they've seen so far. Proceed to 4.

4) Once the biggest threat is determined, see if it is possible to attack that threat and if there is any risk or other disadvantages in doing so. Weigh the pros and cons and take action accordingly, based on the perceived relative difference in threat levels, risk level, etc. This may mean going after the perceived bigger threat and eating an OA. It may mean staying engaged with a perceived lesser threat. It may mean something else entirely.

5) Rinse and repeat for the next NPC / turn

So I think what both sides here are saying is not that different from each other. We have to consider what the NPCs know and have them make decisions based on that. However, that will vary NPC to NPC, fight to fight. No one is saying (at least that I've seen) that every fight every enemy is just going to straight up ignore the tanks and target the casters. What I think is happening, and what I've been trying to explain in my previous posts, is that people discuss tank builds and optimization and hyperfocus on the scenarios where the enemies ignore the tank (temporarily) and go for the squishier party members. And I think you're drawing the conclusion from that that everyone thinks that this just always happens (and apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth). But I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that that scenario is the hardest one to deal with for a tank. It's a common fallacy, especially for newer players, that you can just be a bag of HP and be a successful tank. Will it work in some situations? Sure. But there are plenty where it won't work. And so people discuss ways to address this gap, because it's harder to do than just max HP/AC. Not because it's the only situation that will occur, but it's one of the harder ones for tanks to deal with.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Whether or not it makes sense to take the risk in a given situation is a different question from whether the orc would ever provoke an opportunity attack under any circumstances. A lot of people here are arguing that the orc would never provoke an opportunity attack under any circumstances which is ridiculous.

Now as far as whether it is worth it in a particular situation goes, that goes to the more interesting discussion. That calculation has two parts:
1. How dangerous is the opportunity attack? A seven year old with a dagger she can barely lift is the low end of risk. A titan with a maul as big as a house is another. I figure that the protection style tank with a 1d8+3 longsword is on the "not too threatening" end of the spectrum. A raging, reckless attacking barbarian with great weapon master who just cut the other orc in half with a single blow is closer to the "very threatening" end of the spectrum. On the threatening end, the orc who's going to take out the wizard might use a withdraw action to get there rather than just moving. On the less threatening end, it's probably worth the attack to get the grapple or attack on the caster right away (rather than next round).

2. How much do they know about the danger of casters?

This is going to be setting specific, but I generally figure that in most D&D settings, any group that is fighting the PCs is probably not all going into their first fight. Even if it is their first fight, they still have secondhand knowledge. They are violent people in a violent world full of magic and mystery. Any of the older ones have at least matched to battle or gone on raids even if they were in a unit that didn't see enough action to be more than a rank and file orc/bandit/whatever. The young ones' parents probably saw battle and if they didn't they certainly have a blood relative who did. Maybe their part of the battle was on the other side from the magic and they didn't get a good look at exactly what happened but they heard stories and know it was important.

The orcs have raided farmsteads in the borderlands. Their elders and uncles and cousins were present when the tribe faced the Castellan's men in battle and were routed at the battle of the river crossing. They have seen their shaman conjure blights and rip a rival's beating heart from his chest when an apprentice challenged him for his position. The bandits a couple bandits were a part of the Castellan's army that routed the orcs before they were branded and cast out of the army for being drunk on watch and assaulting the barmaid. They saw how the wizard's apprentice who accompanied then was able to put a pair of orcs to sleep on the right flank and were on the protection detail for the priest as be used his magic to protect the army. They also saw what the orc shaman did to the peasants from Abbotsford before the archers brought him down.

The pirates? They remember what the priests of Dispater did to those who displeased them before they escaped the sewer of a city they grew up in and signed on with the freebooters.

They may not know exactly what the party's particular wizard or cleric or bard can do, but everyone has either enough firsthand experience or secondhand experience to know what priests or wizards or bards generally look like and that they often have magic that is worth taking risks to shut down.

[LudicSavant]

Whether or not it makes sense to take the risk in a given situation is a different question from whether the orc would ever provoke an opportunity attack under any circumstances. A lot of people here are arguing that the orc would never provoke an opportunity attack under any circumstances which is ridiculous.

Now as far as whether it is worth it in a particular situation goes, that goes to the more interesting discussion. That calculation has two parts:
1. How dangerous is the opportunity attack? A seven year old with a dagger she can barely lift is the low end of risk. A titan with a maul as big as a house is another. I figure that the protection style tank with a 1d8+3 longsword is on the "not too threatening" end of the spectrum. A raging, reckless attacking barbarian with great weapon master who just cut the other orc in half with a single blow is closer to the "very threatening" end of the spectrum. On the threatening end, the orc who's going to take out the wizard might use a withdraw action to get there rather than just moving. On the less threatening end, it's probably worth the attack to get the grapple or attack on the caster right away (rather than next round).

2. How much do they know about the danger of casters?

This is going to be setting specific, but I generally figure that in most D&D settings, any group that is fighting the PCs is probably not all going into their first fight. Even if it is their first fight, they still have secondhand knowledge. They are violent people in a violent world full of magic and mystery. Any of the older ones have at least matched to battle or gone on raids even if they were in a unit that didn't see enough action to be more than a rank and file orc/bandit/whatever. The young ones' parents probably saw battle and if they didn't they certainly have a blood relative who did. Maybe their part of the battle was on the other side from the magic and they didn't get a good look at exactly what happened but they heard stories and know it was important.

The orcs have raided farmsteads in the borderlands. Their elders and uncles and cousins were present when the tribe faced the Castellan's men in battle and were routed at the battle of the river crossing. They have seen their shaman conjure blights and rip a rival's beating heart from his chest when an apprentice challenged him for his position. The bandits a couple bandits were a part of the Castellan's army that routed the orcs before they were branded and cast out of the army for being drunk on watch and assaulting the barmaid. They saw how the wizard's apprentice who accompanied then was able to put a pair of orcs to sleep on the right flank and were on the protection detail for the priest as be used his magic to protect the army. They also saw what the orc shaman did to the peasants from Abbotsford before the archers brought him down.

The pirates? They remember what the priests of Dispater did to those who displeased them before they escaped the sewer of a city they grew up in and signed on with the freebooters.

They may not know exactly what the party's particular wizard or cleric or bard can do, but everyone has either enough firsthand experience or secondhand experience to know what priests or wizards or bards generally look like and that they often have magic that is worth taking risks to shut down.

Agreed.

Dr. Samurai said that he was specifically talking about the enemy being a "skilled warrior." The thing about skilled warriors is that they can size up other warriors -- since for whatever reason Game of Thrones was brought up, think something like Bronn or Khal Drogo. Bronn knows he can run circles around the turtle-build Ser Vardis. Khal Drogo knows he can handle Mogo swinging at him, to the point that he basically drops his defenses and shows off for the crowd. Likewise, someone like Ser Vardis knows he can barrel into Bronn (or, if needs be, past him) and it's going to take some time and effort for Bronn to actually hurt him.

None of these characters are immune to swords -- quite the opposite, they are far more vulnerable to swords than characters in the D&D world are (because people in Game of Thrones do not have superhuman physical characteristics anywhere NEAR as often as D&D characters do). And yet they still have some idea of how deadly this particular sword wielder is to them, and what that means for their ability to get around the map.

In short, just because these characters aren't immune to swords doesn't mean that they can't do a threat assessment of how dangerous your sword is to them. They don't know about hit points, but hit points are still representing something, and Khal Drogo can sense that your 1d8+3, 50% to hit opportunity attack is not a big threat by his standards. He doesn't know the numbers, he just has a feel for your swordsmanship and his own skill... which works out to being functionally rather similar to knowing the numbers. Also, HP is an abstraction. A hit for a few points of damage is just wearing down Ser Vardis's stamina or armor, not impaling him. Bronn is very accurate, but has to wear Ser Vardis down over a long, extended fight, and he knows that and employs his strategy accordingly in his iconic fight.



The orc can kill the fighter with one blow. The fighter is a lethal threat; if he lands an OA and then takes his turn after the orc kills the wizard, the fighter can kill the orc.

It's not about cowardice, it's about what makes sense.

What makes sense depends a lot on the scenario. If the scenario is that the orc really can kill the fighter in one swing (not in the sense of "once Ser Vardis is worn down over several rounds, and his healer is out of healing resources and everything," but actually "the fight is actually over in 6 seconds"), and there's just one orc there, and the OA will do nothing but hasten the orc's death, then yeah. The lone orc should attack the squishy fighter.

But that's a very different scenario from one where Ser Vardis is a turtle who's predictably going to take forever to wear down, and there's a horde of orcs who can just overrun the one-man front line to get at whatever target they want. Maybe Vardis will injure one of the orcs. Probably not you, but maybe you. Suddenly the risk/reward assessment is very different indeed. The orc horde is not going to stop for this one man, unless this one man has something to encourage them to stop.

Remember, that "forum truism" you talk about is generally given in context of someone building a turtle -- a character who neglects offense, mobility, stickiness, and the like in favor of just building up their AC/HP/etc. People are going to notice that the character is a turtle and they're going to deal with other things.

The notion that monsters will somehow not notice that a turtle is a turtle is... well, it's giving warriors too little credit. Warriors notice this sort of thing about their opponents. They do it all the time in real life, in books, movies, tv shows, whatever. They don't know about HP and the like, but those mechanics are representing something that they do know about.

[Dr.Samurai]

So I think what both sides here are saying is not that different from each other. We have to consider what the NPCs know and have them make decisions based on that. However, that will vary NPC to NPC, fight to fight. No one is saying (at least that I've seen) that every fight every enemy is just going to straight up ignore the tanks and target the casters. What I think is happening, and what I've been trying to explain in my previous posts, is that people discuss tank builds and optimization and hyperfocus on the scenarios where the enemies ignore the tank (temporarily) and go for the squishier party members. And I think you're drawing the conclusion from that that everyone thinks that this just always happens (and apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth). But I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just that that scenario is the hardest one to deal with for a tank. It's a common fallacy, especially for newer players, that you can just be a bag of HP and be a successful tank. Will it work in some situations? Sure. But there are plenty where it won't work. And so people discuss ways to address this gap, because it's harder to do than just max HP/AC. Not because it's the only situation that will occur, but it's one of the harder ones for tanks to deal with.
I don't think you're putting words in my mouth. I do believe that the online forum meta is exactly "ignore frontline". The difference is that you think this is more speaking to specific cases, whereas, from what I've seen, this is simply the general opinion about how combat should and will go in D&D. You may be right, but that's not the sense of it that I have.

Really, I started the thread to hash out other "metas" that people operate their NPCs under. I only mentioned that I find the "frontline" meta ridiculous because I didn't want people to think I agree with it by mentioning it. I had no idea I was going to receive so much pushback for something that is literally mentioned every single time tanks are brought up, and without any of the nuance that you're suggesting (not to say you aren't right).

Whether or not it makes sense to take the risk in a given situation is a different question from whether the orc would ever provoke an opportunity attack under any circumstances. A lot of people here are arguing that the orc would never provoke an opportunity attack under any circumstances which is ridiculous.
I haven't seen that argument made.

Now as far as whether it is worth it in a particular situation goes, that goes to the more interesting discussion. That calculation has two parts:
1. How dangerous is the opportunity attack? A seven year old with a dagger she can barely lift is the low end of risk. A titan with a maul as big as a house is another. I figure that the protection style tank with a 1d8+3 longsword is on the "not too threatening" end of the spectrum.
So 50% of an orc's HP is "not too threatening". I find that... strange. I find that at any level of the game, if something deals half your HP in damage in a single attack, it will give you pause.

A raging, reckless attacking barbarian with great weapon master who just cut the other orc in half with a single blow is closer to the "very threatening" end of the spectrum. On the threatening end, the orc who's going to take out the wizard might use a withdraw action to get there rather than just moving. On the less threatening end, it's probably worth the attack to get the grapple or attack on the caster right away (rather than next round).
I'll note that Reckless won't apply to the OA, but the rest I think makes sense. But keep in mind that the OA is *in addition* to the damage the frontline is doing on their own turns. It's not just "will this one single attack kill me", because you're not even targeting the fighter/barbarian to hurt them/kill them. You're going after the caster. The fighter/barbarian will attack you and you're giving them an OA on top of that.

2. How much do they know about the danger of casters?

This is going to be setting specific, but I generally figure that in most D&D settings, any group that is fighting the PCs is probably not all going into their first fight. Even if it is their first fight, they still have secondhand knowledge. They are violent people in a violent world full of magic and mystery.
Well, none of this requires that they are familiar with magic, or just the right amount of magic to think (1) they need to take out the caster and (2) they will take out the caster.

Also, the world is full of magic and mystery... for the players. It's the players that are exploring and learning and acquiring. A minotaur in a dungeon may have killed an archeologist team, and some dwarf miners, and the random goblin/orc/kobold/etc. But the minotaur doesn't know about magic just by virtue of living in a world full of magic and mystery.

Again, maybe in some worlds, it is the case that spells are common knowledge all throughout. But I don't think it's a given.

The examples you give I generally am okay with and agree with and they make sense.



Dr. Samurai said that he was specifically talking about the enemy being a "skilled warrior." The thing about skilled warriors is that they can size up other warriors -- since for whatever reason he wants to talk about Game of Thrones, think something like Bronn or Khal Drogo.
{scrubbed} First of all, someone else linked a video clip to Game of Thrones where Drogo is challenged by one of his own and drops his weapons because he's that confident. I actually thought it was you but now that I've looked back I can't find it. I used GoT because it was already brought up and it has great examples of people being killed from behind by a single weapon attack. It was used to demonstrate where I and others are coming from about the idea of an enemy simply rushing past the frontline and focusing on the caster. I can't believe that the concept is so complex that it warrants a "for whatever reason" remark from you. This is the second time you've done this, the first being when you attributed my "video gamey" comment to something else that I had already replied to differently. I ignored it the first time. I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and I'd appreciate the same in return.

To the actual points... I'll say the disagreement, I think, is if Khal Drogo or Bron would have that same attitude toward a PC fighter or barbarian. Because so far I've seen 50/50 to hit and 50% hp in damage is non-threatening. But that's not really the same thing. Drogo and Bron don't think they are going to get hit. That's very different than "there's a 50/50 chance of getting hit and it's going to take me halfway to dead if it lands, oh and there are still other enemies on the battlefield as well once I kill this wizard..."

[LudicSavant]

I really don't understand why these types of comments keep cropping up.

I thought you wanted to talk about Game of Thrones, because you were sticking with talking about Game of Thrones.

Because if we stick with Game of Thrones (I won't include the gifs) let's ask Eddard Stark what happens when you turn your back on an armed warrior. Or we could ask Sir Arthur Dayne if turning your back on an armed warrior is wise. Or we could ask that Son of the Harpy that was attacking Barristan Selmy if it's dangerous to have armed warriors behind you. Or what about the Mad King, let's ask him if an armed warrior behind you is a lethal threat or not.

I thought you were talking about skilled warriors because you said this:

Ok, I can't reply to everyone just yet but again, I want to try and refocus the conversation.

*snip*

But if you're talking about enemies that are right in the thick of things and choose to ignore the frontline, then I DO want to know what they believe about the game world that makes them simultaneously a skilled warrior, and a skilled warrior that does not find another skilled warrior a lethal threat.

Edit: Also, you seem to be replying very over-defensively, as if I think it's a bad thing to use Game of Thrones for examples, which I don't (if I did, I wouldn't have given the examples of Bronn and Drogo myself). So... :smallconfused:

[ender241]

I don't think you're putting words in my mouth. I do believe that the online forum meta is exactly "ignore frontline". The difference is that you think this is more speaking to specific cases, whereas, from what I've seen, this is simply the general opinion about how combat should and will go in D&D. You may be right, but that's not the sense of it that I have.

Really, I started the thread to hash out other "metas" that people operate their NPCs under. I only mentioned that I find the "frontline" meta ridiculous because I didn't want people to think I agree with it by mentioning it. I had no idea I was going to receive so much pushback for something that is literally mentioned every single time tanks are brought up, and without any of the nuance that you're suggesting (not to say you aren't right).

I think this is the crux of it here. It's difficult to say what the general opinion is on something like this. We can much more easily look at specific examples of posts/comments, but even then (as this thread showed) people's words are often misconstrued/misunderstood. Even your initial argument seems to have been misunderstood, as many of us seemed to interpret it as "NPCs never push past the front line." It's clear now that that's not your stance.

As for why people always talk about this situation when talking about tanks, I think I already explained that: because it's the more difficult scenario for a tank to handle. And, while people will often not go into the detail I did in the decision making of the NPCs, I do commonly see build aspects discussed which directly influence that decision-making process.

How many of Ludic's tank builds talk about having a nasty OA? That affects the risk assessment for that NPC when they see their buddy get lit up with a Warcaster Booming Blade + Shadow Blade OA. If the tank is imposing disadvantage on the NPC's attacks against other people that again will influence their decision. Etc. While it might not be explicitly stated, it's all about influencing the decision-making of the NPC - making it more enticing to attack the tank than the rest of the party.

Will there be times that the NPC attacks the tank regardless? Sure, but that's what the tank wants anyway so why spend time focusing on that? And still, a lot of tank build guides will spend some time on survivability, because what is a tank without being able to take some punches? It might not be a lot of time, especially if you're talking about a barbarian or fighter chassis, but probably some time. And more time if it's a less durable chassis like a Warlock or something. This is addressing the scenarios where the tank does become the focus of the attacks. Which should be really what they want. So, less worried about it, less talk about it.

But, this is just what I've seen and how I've interpreted it. You certainly have seen and experienced other viewpoints. I've not seen anyone claim that the frontline will always be ignored, but maybe you have. I don't know. But that's why it's difficult to talk about the overall "online forum meta" when online forums are compromised of thousands of people each with unique perspectives and experiences, and who on occasion get misunderstood 🙂.

Maybe now we can get to the original purpose you had for the thread lol.

[LudicSavant]

To the actual points... I'll say the disagreement, I think, is if Khal Drogo or Bron would have that same attitude toward a PC fighter or barbarian. Because so far I've seen 50/50 to hit and 50% hp in damage is non-threatening. But that's not really the same thing. Drogo and Bron don't think they are going to get hit. That's very different than "there's a 50/50 chance of getting hit and it's going to take me halfway to dead if it lands, oh and there are still other enemies on the battlefield as well once I kill this wizard..."

If you built a turtle of the sort that people say will be ignored, then you're not going to be doing 50% hp in damage to Khal Drogo or Bronn with an OA. You might do 50% hp to Mogo with an OA, but you don't fight just Mogo, you fight a Dothraki Horde.

[da newt]

I think some of the cross talk / miscommunication / disagreement in this thread may be because we are all having trouble distinguishing between "how much meta should the NPCs use in their decisions" vs "how much meta should the DM use in their decisions for the NPCs."

Once we start talking about 'how much meta do the NPCs understand' I think we've gone after the false topic. The NPCs, monsters, and PCs should not have any meta knowledge - that is only something the DM and Players can have (knowledge that this is a game with rules).

I think Tenarii's response was the clearest / simplest - the DM should aim to match the Player's meta. I can follow this logic and would be perfectly happy at tables that used that rule of thumb and believe it would result in a balanced and enjoyable game. Then you can RP / flavor the meta tactics however you wish to portray your NPCs and Monsters per their ability scores, knowledge and motivations.

Discussions of 'bad guy X would know if he should eat an op attack to get to the wizard in the back' become irrelevant. Conversely, if you want to regulate the DM's meta then shouldn't you also regulate the Player's meta and limit their decisions similarly? (and who wants to do that?)

[strangebloke]

isn't familiarity with magic and its uses a factor of the setting? I would be shocked to hear that a group of orcs in faerun would be unaware of magic, but a group in say dragonlance might not. Though, even without magic there's a motivation to get to the squishies. They're squishies, and barring certain examples like high level monks, they probably look like squishies. A dex fighter with a longbow is even more important to run down than a wizard is, and even more vulnerable. The orc impulse to "cut down the weak" and break the spirits of their enemies with aggressive tactics feels very on flavor for orcs, at least as i've usually seen people use them.

As for the question of "being willing to risk getting an OA" I think we're working too much with one orc examples here, lol. In the context of a DND battle, there will be a dozen or more orcs usually. The problem of a big guy in armor, is he's only one guy, and he only has one reaction. This is game mechanics, but in practical terms the orcs collectively know Armored Guy's capacity to harm them as a whole is limited. It's not a "I won't die from a single strike from this guy" situation its a "If this guy even attacks me rather than one of my 12 friends, I'll probably live" situation. It's a reasonable analysis to make, even if (in context) they're wrong. Maybe Armored Guy is a Strogue Warcaster who will hit them with 6d6 sneak attack and greenflame blade that roasts them and their friend, while the 'squishy' they were trying to get to was actually a bladesinger with 22 AC. (this is why this tactic isn't actually 'combative' DMing. In a sense, it can really reward a player for having built their character to take advantage of someone using such tactics.)

Of course this varies between various enemy types. Orcs are aggressive, so I feel very confident about the above, but Humans or Goblins might be more cautious. Hobgoblins or Elves might have squishies of their own to protect. Gnolls, if anything, will be even more bloodthirsty than orcs, as would many demons. Some mindless undead or beasts might be even more bloodthirsty still, but so stupid they don't do anything other than hit what's in front of them.

But to get back to my main point: When I say "If you are just a tough guy you aren't a tank, enemies can just run past you" what I mean is that enemies can avoid you, not that they always will. Unless you have explicit abilities to force people to attack you, sometimes enemies will run past you. Sometimes they won't, but IMO a 'tank' definitionally should be able to do what they want.

[Willowhelm]

I think some of the cross talk / miscommunication / disagreement in this thread may be because we are all having trouble distinguishing between "how much meta should the NPCs use in their decisions" vs "how much meta should the DM use in their decisions for the NPCs."

Once we start talking about 'how much meta do the NPCs understand' I think we've gone after the false topic. The NPCs, monsters, and PCs should not have any meta knowledge - that is only something the DM and Players can have (knowledge that this is a game with rules).

I think Tenarii's response was the clearest / simplest - the DM should aim to match the Player's meta. I can follow this logic and would be perfectly happy at tables that used that rule of thumb and believe it would result in a balanced and enjoyable game. Then you can RP / flavor the meta tactics however you wish to portray your NPCs and Monsters per their ability scores, knowledge and motivations.

Discussions of 'bad guy X would know if he should eat an op attack to get to the wizard in the back' become irrelevant. Conversely, if you want to regulate the DM's meta then shouldn't you also regulate the Player's meta and limit their decisions similarly? (and who wants to do that?)

This is, I believe, a misunderstanding of what the OP means by “meta”. I think a large part of the confusion is due to this.

You’re talking about in game knowledge and out of game knowledge. Where “knowledge that this is a game with rules” is the meta.

I believe the OP is treating meta more like this:

In the world there is plenty of combat. The current meta for npc group x is their current beliefs about tactics and strategies and their understanding of how combat (and the world at large) works. Their meta can be changed by in world developments. Eg. cavalry charges, better bows, fighting without honour, firearms, trench warfare etc. This is the “meta” that they are in.

It’s hard to discuss the in-world thought process about the choice to move away from your opponent and risk an attack without referencing the game mechanic of “an opportunity attack” or “the disengage action”. The npc doesn’t need to know the mechanic to know the result. The question is… do they have training that says it’s worth making that choice and how did they get it.


If you built a turtle of the sort that people say will be ignored, then you're not going to be doing 50% hp in damage to Khal Drogo or Bronn with an OA. You might do 50% hp to Mogo with an OA, but you don't fight just Mogo, you fight a Dothraki Horde.

I think part of the friction here is you are making totally sound arguments that dr samurai agrees with but some choice of language makes it seem like theres a disagreement. Neither of you actively want to chose GoT to illustrate your points, you’re both using it for examples because that’s where other posts went so you followed to that area because people are engaging there.

Ludic is working with a conception of a certain kind of build which might get ignored. (“The sort that people say will be ignored”). I think dr samurai would agree that build would get ignored (for a given level of ignore)

Ludic agrees a build with overwhelming damage will not be “ignored” because that wouldn’t make sense either.

The problem is that in other threads, people do recommend ignoring such builds (possibly through miscommunication). In a recent thread I suggested DPR can be a “tanking” mechanic all by itself (in certain situations, using tanking as shorthand for drawing aggro or making yourself a priority threat etc etc) and it took a few back and forth messages to get agreement that actually yes… sometimes damage is enough to make you the high priority. But in this thread it seems like some people are accepting that as baseline and obvious and some people are not. And that isn’t even the core question - it’s just the example people have latched onto!

I still see a lot of people agreeing with each other really intensely without really realising it. Text is a difficult medium.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Discussions of 'bad guy X would know if he should eat an op attack to get to the wizard in the back' become irrelevant. Conversely, if you want to regulate the DM's meta then shouldn't you also regulate the Player's meta and limit their decisions similarly? (and who wants to do that?)
Not necessarily disagreeing, just quoting because I think it's a good branching point:

The decision from the DM to make "bad guy X" do this might be based on this, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean "bad guy X" is engaging in any meta knowledge to decide this is the best course of action for him. Wizards/Spellcasters are dangerous high priority targets is not meta knowledge, knowing that you have a better chance of winning if the caster is dead is not meta knowledge and knowing whether you can survive a potential swing from the people between you and the caster is not meta knowledge.

We might see them as meta concepts because for us its a game, for these creatures it's life. There are real things that lend them knowledge of these aspects.

Honestly, from the very beginning "meta" was a terrible term to use for the premise of this thread, because if you read the OP none of the aspects being described as "meta" are exclusively meta knowledge, these are things that someone living in the game world would know.

Do monsters know that they can't take hostages? Or that PCs will walk through damaging hazards if they feel they can take the damage? Do monsters know about cover and line of sight to use that against ranged enemies and casters?
Why can't they take hostages? Hostages work great unless the players are entirely uninvested in the world, which is a player problem not an NPC/PC problem. Why wouldn't they assume someone might be crazy/durable enough to do so? No soldier has ever made a heroic sacrifice before, none have ever pushed themselves to a point of discomfort to achieve a goal? Why wouldn't they know about line of sight? They have eyes and know that they need to be able to see the people they're trying to attack.

I just don't think "meta" is the right term for what is being asked for. For example, hit points as a measure if alive vs dead are a meta concept but knowing what hits you can reasonable take is not. A devil is not meta-gaming if they waltz through a wall of fire, they know it's not something terribly threatening to them. Likewise, a PC is not meta-gaming if they've been swarmed and tell their spellcaster ally to "take the shot" with their AoE, they have reasonable confidence that the outcome of this course of action is more beneficial to their survival than otherwise.

It's a complicated idea that I don't think has a simple answer but at the very least there's no reason the NPC's should arbitrarily know less than the PC's. If your PC's have thought of it, it's guaranteed that someone else (an NPC) has thought the same.

To put it as plainly as I can - NPC's should know a lot, they existed in the world before you did.

[Willowhelm]

Honestly, from the very beginning "meta" was a terrible term to use for the premise of this thread, because if you read the OP none of the aspects being described as "meta" are exclusively meta knowledge, these are things that someone living in the game world would know.

Snip

I just don't think "meta" is the right term for what is being asked for. For example, hit points as a measure if alive vs dead are a meta concept but knowing what hits you can reasonable take is not. A devil is not meta-gaming if they waltz through a wall of fire, they know it's not something terribly threatening to them. Likewise, a PC is not meta-gaming if they've been swarmed and tell their spellcaster ally to "take the shot" with their AoE, they have reasonable confidence that the outcome of this course of action is more beneficial to their survival than otherwise.


While I agree that it was a poor choice for this thread, it is a common usage of the word in other communities.

Eg:

“In essence, a "meta" in gaming terminology is a generally agreed upon strategy by the community. ”

https://www.arc.unsw.edu.au/blitz/read/explainer-what-is-a-metaquestion

Defining terms is super useful when you’re trying to reach a common understanding.

[da newt]

from grammarly: What does meta mean in 2020?
Meta can be used as an acronym for “most effective tactics available,” and calling something “meta” means that it's an effective way to achieve the goal of the game, whether it's to beat other players or beat the game itself.

Meta is a word which, like so many other things, we have the ancient Greeks to thank for. When they used it, meta meant “beyond,” “after,” or “behind.” The “beyond” sense of meta still lingers in words like metaphysics or meta-economy. But that’s still not the meta most of us come across today.

One of the more popular uses of meta today is for the meaning best described by the formula “meta-X equals X about X.” So, if we take the word “data” for our X, and add the prefix meta- to it, we get metadata, or “data about data.” A meta-text is a text about texts, metacognition is thinking about thinking, and a meta-joke is a joke about jokes. The self-reflection sense of meta has also given rise to the use of the word as a standalone adjective, where meta is used to describe something that’s self-reflective or self-referencing.

The self-referencing sense of meta seems especially popular in art. In its simplest form, a book in which a character is writing a book or a movie in which a character is making a movie can be described as meta. Some works are more meta than others—the movie Birdman, for example, is a movie about an actor who played a superhero in a movie and who now tries to rekindle his career in theater, and that actor is played by an actor who really did play a superhero in a movie and is now trying to rekindle his career in a movie that looks more like a play than a movie.

From oxford:
(of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.
"the enterprise is inherently “meta,” since it doesn't review movies, for example, it reviews the reviewers who review movies"

From BBC: What does it mean when someone says meta?
Relatedly, in colloquial English, meta has become an adjective, which essentially means extremely self-aware, self-reflective, or self-referential– as in the phrase, "that's so meta".


Bottom line: You're right. I'm not sure what META is meant to mean.

[ProsecutorGodot]

While I agree that it was a poor choice for this thread, it is a common usage of the word in other communities.

Eg:

“In essence, a "meta" in gaming terminology is a generally agreed upon strategy by the community. ”

https://www.arc.unsw.edu.au/blitz/read/explainer-what-is-a-metaquestion

Defining terms is super useful when you’re trying to reach a common understanding.

In this instance it's being used to reference "meta-knowledge" though, with "meta" referring to a fictional world, like the facebook rebranding thing. The "meta" question here is asking if NPC's are aware of things that are defined in the rulebook, which the general answer (and my understanding of things) is that very few rules in the rulebook exist entirely independent from the fiction, they co-exist and these "meta" guidelines (the rules) do exist in ways that an NPC could observe and make decisions from.

Dr. Samurai has been very clear that they did not mean "tactics" or the meta that you're defining here. They're using the term as its described in the DMG but I feel that the examples they have given are far off from the intended usage. The DMG describes metagame thinking as something like “The DM wouldn’t throw such a powerful monster at us!”. The characters have no concept like this, there is no "DM" in there world. NPC's don't see "Player Characters" they see people, like them, and they should act like it. The PC might prove to be exceptional but there's no reason for them to immediately deviate from standard thinking because they've met "PC's"... these are just guys.

They would take hostages to threaten an NPC, there's no indication that such a thing wouldn't work on a PC. They might bolt through a line of NPC statblock bandits (they are one, they know very well what they can do) to attack the spellcaster attempting a coup on their trusted leader and believe they have a reasonable chance of success, this doesn't change when presented with a PC because they're just people. They should be competent and understanding of how things usually are by default, they learn exceptions.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Part of the problem is that while meta is short for metagame it has a different use in D&D than it does in modern egaming communities.

In D&D it has usually meant the use of out of character knowledge to inform in character actions.

In the larger gaming community, however it typically refers to common strategic choices outside of the tactical gameplay time. For example, in Warhammer (whether the CA total war game or tabletop), you might say that high elves are irrelevant to the meta(game) because no one plays them anymore or that you need to have a plan to deal with ogre kingdom armies because they are dominant in the meta or even that you need to be able to deal with particular ogre kingdoms units because they are the meta-defining, highly effective units that you should reasonably expect to face.

In that latter context, a meta army would be the one that you expect to face and meta tactics would be the tactics that are generally effective and expected.

[Bovine Colonel]

Maybe this point has already been made, but I'd like to highlight that one of the main areas of interest for a D&D forum is character optimization advice. When a player asks for advice on building a tank, the player doesn't necessarily know how the DM will make monsters behave, and even if they do the forum won't necessarily have access to that information. The monsters could all dive into the meatgrinder, or they could act like pieces on a wargame board to maximize their chances of victory, or the DM could vary their tactics depending on who the party is fighting. If forum members tell a player to just maximize AC/HP/saves and assume the monsters will target the player's character, and the monsters run past the PC instead, the player will have received bad advice.

People on the forum can't know what the specific DMing style is at each table whose players ask for advice, so the next best thing is to take as many scenarios into consideration as possible. This applies both to threads directly started by players asking questions and discussions about what advice is best to offer to players (i.e. pretty much all character optimization threads.)

Since the circumstances of the game are generally unknown, it is better in character-optimization discussions about tanks to assume the enemies will act optimally according to the D&D rules regardless of whether they actually do in a given session at a given table. Obviously most encounters at most D&D tables are stacked in favor of the PCs, but it should still be assumed that the enemies will do whatever gives them a chance to achieve their objective, or at least survive while inflicting attrition on the PCs. If a PC is built with high defenses but minimal ability to threaten or control the monsters, the best shot the monsters have at victory is generally to run past the PC to try to eliminate other party members. Whether they actually do that in a given encounter is, for character-optimization discussion purposes, irrelevant.

To answer the OP, the "meta" (as an online gaming term, not a D&D term) on a character optimization forum should be to account for all reasonable situations the party might need to deal with, including intelligent or fanatical or poorly-roleplayed enemies who will run past the front line if that's their best option.

[LordShade]

In short, just because these characters aren't immune to swords doesn't mean that they can't do a threat assessment of how dangerous your sword is to them. They don't know about hit points, but hit points are still representing something, and Khal Drogo can sense that your 1d8+3, 50% to hit opportunity attack is not a big threat by his standards. He doesn't know the numbers, he just has a feel for your swordsmanship and his own skill... which works out to being functionally rather similar to knowing the numbers. Also, HP is an abstraction. A hit for a few points of damage is just wearing down Ser Vardis's stamina or armor, not impaling him. Bronn is very accurate, but has to wear Ser Vardis down over a long, extended fight, and he knows that and employs his strategy accordingly in his iconic fight.

I think this point is really interesting, and I see it as the converse of people in Eberron being able to do an informed threat assessment on a mage because they're familiar with magic.

Mechanically, information like this is usually gated behind things like the Battlemaster's "Know Your Enemy" ability. Notably, that ability works outside of combat. What the above quote is implying is that something like Know Your Enemy exists for every combatant in a fight, and they don't make a check or use a bonus action, they just know it. I think that makes sense--even if I'm a novice martial artist, it only takes me a couple of seconds of fighting against an expert to know they're much better than me. The implication that I take from Ludic's comment is that at her table, in answering the question of "what do the NPCs know and how do they know it," Ludic assumes that everyone has a simplified version of "Know your Enemy" and they have that knowledge because real people have similar knowledge in fighting situations.

Thinking on my own DMing style, I do often give out information like this to my players "you can tell from the way that they're clutching their swords that these guys suck." And sometimes the NPCs get it too "as you draw your gleaming holy sword, you smell something awful. It seems one of the guardsmen pooped in his pants." The difference may be one of degree. In my game, the CR 1/2 orc doesn't think there's a huge gap between himself and a 5th-level paladin. A 12th-level paladin? More likely to flee after a short demonstration of the paladin's skill.

[Tanarii]

The implication that I take from Ludic's comment is that at her table, in answering the question of "what do the NPCs know and how do they know it," Ludic assumes that everyone has a simplified version of "Know your Enemy" and they have that knowledge because real people have similar knowledge in fighting situations.
Why? Everyone at the table has a certain amount of non-detailed resolution information at their fingertips already, and can make threat analysis based on that. There's no reason to assume anything.

[LordShade]

Why? Everyone at the table has a certain amount of non-detailed resolution information at their fingertips already, and can make threat analysis based on that. There's no reason to assume anything.

What does this mean? Can you restate this point using different words?

[Tanarii]

What does this mean? Can you restate this point using different words?
Rough values of the ranges of numbers in the game, and how they map up. Which get more detailed with every roll made and results seen.

[LordShade]

Thanks for clarifying. I think we're saying the same thing. When, as a novice martial artist, I realize that someone is vastly better than me within a few seconds of making contact, that's me using "non-detailed resolution information."

Regardless, I'll wait for Ludic to clarify whether or not she agrees with the inference I've drawn about her table.

[Willowhelm]

Rough values of the ranges of numbers in the game, and how they map up. Which get more detailed with every roll made and results seen.

You seem to be talking about players. I believe the “everyone” in lordshade’s post was about npcs and the “assumption” was meant as a foundation about how Ludic plays npcs, not a piece of knowledge that Ludic doesn’t know and has to “assume”

Hope that helps.

[Tanarii]

You seem to be talking about players. I believe the “everyone” in lordshade’s post was about npcs and the “assumption” was meant as a foundation about how Ludic plays npcs, not a piece of knowledge that Ludic doesn’t know and has to “assume”What's the difference? Meta-gaming is a myth.

Not to mention, Know The Enemy is a resolution layer number providing rule for "players", if you want to make some kind of distinction.

You don't need to assume the DM has a bunch of monsters with Know The Enemy and gather more specifics. Everyone already has a basic understanding of some values of the numbers at hand and can just play accordingly, and the in-universe part handles itself abstractly just fine.

Edit: Now if I, as the DM, remember specific details from a previous fight that a given group of PCs were just in and make ambushing decisions based on it in the next fight with the monsters having no in-universe chance to interact with their enemies first, I can see where a player (and the boards) might cry foul. But it'd have to be back to back for me to have any chance of doing that. I have to have PCs passives written down and constantly refer to them each and every time all session, and that's just one set of numbers. :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

Thanks for clarifying. I think we're saying the same thing. When, as a novice martial artist, I realize that someone is vastly better than me within a few seconds of making contact, that's me using "non-detailed resolution information."

Regardless, I'll wait for Ludic to clarify whether or not she agrees with the inference I've drawn about her table.
I can't speak for Ludic, but I believe he just meant "the orc guesses what the turtle will be able to do if the orc tries to run past them."

Which, you know, is the kind of thing PCs do all the time. If the party barbarian sees a cluster of guys with bows, they're absolutely going to think about eating an OA to get in on the ranged guys. Doubly, triply true if there's a guy with a spellcasting focus.

Arguing that no enemies can make the same kind of judgement call players make all the time feels... wrong to me.

[Willowhelm]

Arguing that no enemies can make the same kind of judgement call players make all the time feels... wrong to me.

Is anyone doing that?

I think I’m done trying to help people communicate here. Clearly I’m failing at it.

[Tawmis]

I mean, it boils down to things like humanoids acting intelligently.

Orcs have priests/shamans/wizards/whatever you want to call them, for example.
They're well aware of the potential for magic users (whether for healing or for damage).
So the idea of taking down the "healer" or the "boom stick" seems like a logical choice.
Whether that's by sacrificing a few to keep the warriors busy, while others run by with spears or target with arrows, is very logical in my opinion.

Animals tend to pray on the wounded/weak/slower ones - so I could see, for example a pack of wolves, focusing on a wizard.
After all, their teeth can more easily penetrate robes rather than scalemale or platemail.

Things that have no intelligence (zombies) just start swinging at what's close.

[strangebloke]

Is anyone doing that?

I think I’m done trying to help people communicate here. Clearly I’m failing at it.

oh, I don't know, I haven't been keeping up completely with the discussion. But I think its right to say that monsters have access to similar levels of information to players, at least about 'normal' things.

[Dr.Samurai]

Edit: Also, you seem to be replying very over-defensively...
Let's agree to disagree. {scrubbed}

I think this is the crux of it here. It's difficult to say what the general opinion is on something like this.
Well, now it is :smalltongue:. I'd argue that before the thread, if you polled the forum with a question like "True or False: Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back" virtually everyone would circle TRUE. But I accept the explanations of "we're optimizing for all situations" as opposed to suggesting enemies will always ignore the tank unless they have an aggro mechanic.

How many of Ludic's tank builds talk about having a nasty OA? That affects the risk assessment for that NPC when they see their buddy get lit up with a Warcaster Booming Blade + Shadow Blade OA. If the tank is imposing disadvantage on the NPC's attacks against other people that again will influence their decision. Etc. While it might not be explicitly stated, it's all about influencing the decision-making of the NPC - making it more enticing to attack the tank than the rest of the party.
I understand the rationale for taunt mechanics and powerful OAs.

But the flip side of that is that taking attacks from you and not trying to kill you back is NOT a disincentive to stick with the frontline. We've seen it here a number of times "1d8+3 is non-threatening", or some variation of that. And so I'm trying to understand what that looks like from the monsters' perspectives, and how DMs are informing their NPCs. As I've mentioned a couple of times now, the wizard is going to cast Shield and blip out of there, so the monsters have just eaten OAs for nothing and have now gathered themselves in a neat little square. But the NPCs don't know this for some reason. An orc knows that casters are threatening because "casters in the world are lethal", but for some reason the orc doesn't know that a bog standard NPC Knight out of the MM can kill it with a single multiattack. That same knight will kill a minotaur in 2-3 turns if the minotaur insists on provoking OAs. NPCs know about 9th level casters that can cast Polymorph and the like, but they don't know that a bog standard Champion can take out a Hill Giant in 12 seconds, kill an ogre in 1 turn, and take down all sorts of iconic enemies without concern, including orc/goblin/gnoll/hobgoblin chieftains. But the NPC knowledge isn't also that "warriors will kill me". It's "I know this warrior is not a champion somehow, so I can ignore him and go after the caster".

And as you go up in CR to monsters that someone like a Champion can't go toe-to-toe with, you start seeing monsters with proficiency in saving throws, Magic Resistance, Legendary Resistance, Damage Resistances, etc. In other words, enemies with natural protection against spells.

So, if your enemies are operating with common knowledge and preparing an elite maneuver against the PCs, do they know that there are powerful spells out there AND ALSO that there are warriors that can kill a giant in the blink of an eye? Or only that the Sleep spell is dangerous?

If your enemies are not operating with that knowledge and instead have to engage the PCs, how many attacks are they taking before they (1) realize the caster needs to get taken down and (2) it can survive an OA from the fighter? Because if the fighter has unloaded a full attack on it, that should be considered when wondering whether an enemy will move away or not. (This is assuming a group of enemies.)

But, this is just what I've seen and how I've interpreted it. You certainly have seen and experienced other viewpoints. I've not seen anyone claim that the frontline will always be ignored, but maybe you have. I don't know. But that's why it's difficult to talk about the overall "online forum meta" when online forums are compromised of thousands of people each with unique perspectives and experiences, and who on occasion get misunderstood 🙂.
I appreciate this Ender. I think there will be plenty of monsters that are going to smash (or try to) through the frontline, intelligent or not, because they are huge and tough and may have multiple attack, etc. One of the first examples brought up was the dragon and I think this is a very obvious example of a monster that really doesn't care about your battle formations because it can swoop in and wreck everyone very easily, absorbing the handful of attacks that come its way in the process. But for the more normal creatures like the ones we've been discussing, I just feel that this truism is informed by limited assumptions (enemies know casters are dangerous, but don't know that warriors are also dangerous AND ALSO NPCs know what the PCs know, which in and of itself is assuming what the PCs know, which I'll get to below).

Maybe now we can get to the original purpose you had for the thread lol.
Ha, perhaps. But when asked about the "meta", everyone reflexively said "there is no meta, it all depends", so I doubt we'll get much. Just have to go through the threads and see the meta bubble out unconsciously. It's like fairies... you can't look at it directly, otherwise it disappears :smalltongue:

isn't familiarity with magic and its uses a factor of the setting? I would be shocked to hear that a group of orcs in faerun would be unaware of magic, but a group in say dragonlance might not. Though, even without magic there's a motivation to get to the squishies.
Well, let's be clear, because there is a difference between "unaware of magic" and "doesn't know the most powerful spells by name and effect at each level". Do orcs know that magic exists? Yes, of course. Do they know all about offensive magic and what it can do? I don't know, do they? There's a lot that goes into that question. Reading Volo's Guide, there's nothing in the entire treatment on orcs that suggests they are learned in magic. They have Claws of Luthic and White Hands of Yurtrus that are basically 5th and 4th level clerics respectively. But these orcs NEVER go into battle; they remain at the cave and protect the home while the warriors are away. The White Hands live on the outskirts as well. Orcs send only their warriors into battle and they value strength above all else. On top of that, The Claws of Luthic have Bestow Curse prepared and no damaging cantrips. So that sucks, but not exactly going to take out a raiding party. The Hands of Yurtrus have Blindness/Deafness and Inflict Wounds. Again, one orc would be Blinded, not exactly armageddon.

All to say that the orcs aren't really getting a super elaborate lesson on combat magic from their own tribes, and they're not attending wizarding school or walking the streets of Waterdeep. It was mentioned earlier that they might be fighting elves, and elves use magic. And that's a great point and it's likely that orcs know all they know about combat magic from their battles/wars with elves. But what exactly is that? How often is there a mage when elves battle orcs, and what levels are those mages typically? I don't know, it's up to the DM. Will there be mages and will orcs see them as a threat? 100%. Does that mean all the orcs are going to run right past the fighter because "If this guy even attacks me rather than one of my 12 friends, I'll probably live"? I don't think so*, because warriors can kill them too; they know this about the world as much as they would know casters can kill them (look at the NPC knight, veteran, gladiator, bandit captain; each can kill an orc with a single multiattack, let alone the champions and warlords).

*An Orc Blade of Ineval has a recharge ability that lets it command up to 3 orcs to make a weapon attack. These are the battle commanders that revere the orc god of strategy. I can totally see the Blade moving up to the frontline while commanding a few other orcs to the caster, and commanding them to take down the wizard. Three attacks at 9 damage each can easily take down a level 4 wizard with 14 Con (lol except for that little ol' Shield spell).

But to get back to my main point: When I say "If you are just a tough guy you aren't a tank, enemies can just run past you" what I mean is that enemies can avoid you, not that they always will. Unless you have explicit abilities to force people to attack you, sometimes enemies will run past you. Sometimes they won't, but IMO a 'tank' definitionally should be able to do what they want.
I agree with this.

The problem is that in other threads, people do recommend ignoring such builds (possibly through miscommunication). In a recent thread I suggested DPR can be a “tanking” mechanic all by itself (in certain situations, using tanking as shorthand for drawing aggro or making yourself a priority threat etc etc) and it took a few back and forth messages to get agreement that actually yes… sometimes damage is enough to make you the high priority. But in this thread it seems like some people are accepting that as baseline and obvious and some people are not. And that isn’t even the core question - it’s just the example people have latched onto!
I am sympathetic to this lol. But maybe it is just a misunderstanding, as you say.

Re: Meta - I had no idea the word would be so... confusing/controversial/irritating. We can ignore it. I hope after five pages most people understand that I'm looking for what is informing the attitudes/perspectives/decisions of the enemy NPCs/monsters. Saying "the caster is a threat" is not enough to answer that question.


Why can't they take hostages? Hostages work great unless the players are entirely uninvested in the world, which is a player problem not an NPC/PC problem.
Generally you can kill a hostage instantly, and that is part of the threat. You can't kill a PC instantly. As I said before (I'm not sure if you're reading all the replies), a PC with a knife at their throat is just Grappled, not actually at risk of dying from a slit throat or a stab to the heart. The PCs, knowing this, will not feel compelled to give in to demands because they can just initiate combat and kill the bad guys.

Why wouldn't they assume someone might be crazy/durable enough to do so? No soldier has ever made a heroic sacrifice before, none have ever pushed themselves to a point of discomfort to achieve a goal?
I feel like we're having our cake and eating it too now. A PC wouldn't be sacrificing themselves is the point. Because they have all those hit points. It's not "discomfort". It's "nothing", because if you walk through a wall of fire and take another 16 points of fire damage, you're fine so long as you aren't at 0. Do the enemies know that when they put up the hazard?

The comment about the cake is because... I feel like I have the perspective you're espousing now. Similar to my comment about warriors being stabbed in the back, and the response was "everyone has 360 degree awareness, they're not worried about getting stabbed in the back". You're appealing to something realistic and tropey, but something that wouldn't pan out that way in D&D because of the rules.

Why wouldn't they know about line of sight? They have eyes and know that they need to be able to see the people they're trying to attack.
Again... if someone complains about realism with regards to magic, they are told "it's magic, it doesn't need to be explained, that's the whole point, it can do anything". But if I ask what NPCs know about how magic works, I get "why wouldn't they know?".

If you hide from a mage, can they still target you with their spells? Do you know about the myriad of AoE spells to know you might still be in danger? Do you know that cover helps you against attack spells but not against non-Dex save spells?

It's a complicated idea that I don't think has a simple answer but at the very least there's no reason the NPC's should arbitrarily know less than the PC's.
And what is it that the PCs "know"? As an example, I'm currently playing a leonin barbarian. I have yet to assume that my character is well versed in magic. In fact, as our casters gain levels he's impressed with what they can do. The first time the wizard used Hypnotic Pattern, as an example. And it's not like the party wizard and cleric are giving us lessons whenever we have downtime.

And bear in mind that my barbarian knows about Hypnotic Pattern because he's hanging around with a wizard all the time. Had he remained in the plainslands, would he know about Hypnotic Pattern? Is the rest of his tribe gaining all this experience and using combat magic every day and unlocking bigger and better spells with each level up? No, of course not.

To answer the OP, the "meta" (as an online gaming term, not a D&D term) on a character optimization forum should be to account for all reasonable situations the party might need to deal with, including intelligent or fanatical or poorly-roleplayed enemies who will run past the front line if that's their best option.
Thank you. I believe this is what Ender has been saying, though I wasn't understanding before. (Probably because I feel like I'm extending an enormous benefit of the doubt in accepting this, but I'm okay with that.)

Arguing that no enemies can make the same kind of judgement call players make all the time feels... wrong to me.
At some point I am going to start posting the Mogatu "I feel like a crazy person" meme lol.

I am not arguing this. In fact, quite the opposite. By asking for the "meta", I'm asking about how the monsters are making the same sorts of value judgements as the PCs. The difference I think is that people are (1) assuming that PCs just know a lot of stuff about the world that might not necessarily be true if their background, the world setting, and circumstances are taken into account, and (2) assuming that monsters would just know what the PCs know.

So I'm not saying that monsters can't make the same judgement calls. But I'm not convinced they have the same information as PCs. Like... when we encounter a scroll or something, it's the party wizard that makes the Arcana check and says "this is a higher level spell, it's beyond my power, but it's Transmutation, I think it may be Disintegrate, a powerful spell that can completely destroy people and objects". My barbarian PC would not know that, and I'm not sure why an orc berserker would know that either. And we can just keep backing up into the lower levels from there and keep asking that question.


I think I’m done trying to help people communicate here. Clearly I’m failing at it.
I genuinely appreciate all your efforts so far :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

All to say that the orcs aren't really getting a super elaborate lesson on combat magic from their own tribes, and they're not attending wizarding school or walking the streets of Waterdeep. It was mentioned earlier that they might be fighting elves, and elves use magic. And that's a great point and it's likely that orcs know all they know about combat magic from their battles/wars with elves. But what exactly is that? How often is there a mage when elves battle orcs, and what levels are those mages typically? I don't know, it's up to the DM. Will there be mages and will orcs see them as a threat? 100%. Does that mean all the orcs are going to run right past the fighter because "If this guy even attacks me rather than one of my 12 friends, I'll probably live"? I don't think so*, because warriors can kill them too; they know this about the world as much as they would know casters can kill them (look at the NPC knight, veteran, gladiator, bandit captain; each can kill an orc with a single multiattack, let alone the champions and warlords).
I mean for faerun specifically, we do know the level of mages commonly involved. 5th to 10th level mages are very common in that setting, which is why I mentioned it. Even an isolated orc tribe would have heard stories, I think that's pretty unavoidable. After all, I play DND but NPCs 'live' in DND. Much as I may never have seen a missile, but still know what one is (and would even without the internet) I would expect orcs to be aware that 'running up and hitting the spellcaster to break their concentration' is a thing they've heard about.

In a setting where magic is more scarce, I feel the need to reiterate, this may not be true.

But more generally, dedicated tanks are a rarity in 5e. Very few monsters, and by default very few PCs, have the capacity to really punish enemies who run past them. Hence why I assert that the judgement call of "I can run past them to get to [priority target]" makes sense as an enemy behavior so often, even if its actually wrong. With the example of an isolated orc tribe specifically, I'd probably have them treat the armored guy like they would a small-but-well-equipped orc, and make assumptions accordingly.


Re: Meta - I had no idea the word would be so... confusing/controversial/irritating. We can ignore it. I hope after five pages most people understand that I'm looking for what is informing the attitudes/perspectives/decisions of the enemy NPCs/monsters. Saying "the caster is a threat" is not enough to answer that question.
In general, and I mean this without an ounce of rancor - saying the word 'meta' is the most surefire way to make yourself misunderstood. This is true in any discussion, but doubly or triply true in DND. "Meta" inherently refers to the discourse around the discourse. The thing around the thing. As such its inherently a vacuous concpet.


At some point I am going to start posting the Mogatu "I feel like a crazy person" meme lol.

I am not arguing this. In fact, quite the opposite. By asking for the "meta", I'm asking about how the monsters are making the same sorts of value judgements as the PCs. The difference I think is that people are (1) assuming that PCs just know a lot of stuff about the world that might not necessarily be true if their background, the world setting, and circumstances are taken into account, and (2) assuming that monsters would just know what the PCs know.

So I'm not saying that monsters can't make the same judgement calls. But I'm not convinced they have the same information as PCs. Like... when we encounter a scroll or something, it's the party wizard that makes the Arcana check and says "this is a higher level spell, it's beyond my power, but it's Transmutation, I think it may be Disintegrate, a powerful spell that can completely destroy people and objects". My barbarian PC would not know that, and I'm not sure why an orc berserker would know that either. And we can just keep backing up into the lower levels from there and keep asking that question.
Oh, well, I would give knowledge of disintegrate to PCs for free, that's never something I'd adjudicate with an Arcana check. More accurately, my players know what disintegrate is, and I have to kind of get over it if they do. Socially, its just not worth stopping time to argue over what may or may not be something a character would have learned in their backstory. The PCs live in a world that I spend small amounts of time reading about, and if a player says "my character heard a story about it in a tavern the other day" they aren't wrong, at least not necessarily. Even something like Meteor Swarm would probably be common knowledge, I mean. It may not have been cast in the area in several centuries, but you can bet people made a story out of it the last time it did. (Asking for checks for such a thing is worse because it creates dumb situations where the barbarian knows what simulacrum is, but the wizard doesn't, because the barbarian rolled a 20 and the wizard rolled a 5. This sort of perverse lore check makes nobody happy.)

But of course, a lot of random groups of street thugs or raiders won't be as well-traveled as PCs, which you're right to point out. But its also pretty rare for knowledge of specific spells to be all that relevant in combat, barring maybe something like counterspell, so its overall a wash. I would probably say that everyone knows generalities like "be wary of magic, it can explode a whole lot of you if you're standing together." or "hit the magic guy so he stops turning gorp into a frog!"

[JustIgnoreMe]

https://www.themonstersknow.com/

Not that I always agree with it, but it can be a nice prompt to think about different approaches they might take.
I came here to post that.

[diplomancer]

Well, now it is :smalltongue:. I'd argue that before the thread, if you polled the forum with a question like "True or False: Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back" virtually everyone would circle TRUE. But I accept the explanations of "we're optimizing for all situations" as opposed to suggesting enemies will always ignore the tank unless they have an aggro mechanic.

So, I think here's the problem. If someone told me to answer that True or False question I would refuse to do it. Here's what I'd do:

"True or False: (all) Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back"

False.

"True or False: (some) Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back"

True.

"True or False: (most) Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back"

DM dependent, but probably False.

"True or False: (enough) Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back (that someone should take that into consideration when making a tank)"

Also DM dependent, but probably True.

[Tanarii]

Well, now it is :smalltongue:. I'd argue that before the thread, if you polled the forum with a question like "True or False: Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back" virtually everyone would circle TRUE. But I accept the explanations of "we're optimizing for all situations" as opposed to suggesting enemies will always ignore the tank unless they have an aggro mechanic.
You'd need to work on the phrasing. Because the reason I'd circle TRUE is my first thought is "generally the monsters outnumber the PCs and can circle around the 'frontline', and in fact it's hard to maintain a line. So definitely TRUE."

But as you've made abundantly clear, that's not really what you are really asking at all when posing such a question.

[LudicSavant]

In short, just because these characters aren't immune to swords doesn't mean that they can't do a threat assessment of how dangerous your sword is to them. They don't know about hit points, but hit points are still representing something, and Khal Drogo can sense that your 1d8+3, 50% to hit opportunity attack is not a big threat by his standards. He doesn't know the numbers, he just has a feel for your swordsmanship and his own skill... which works out to being functionally rather similar to knowing the numbers. Also, HP is an abstraction. A hit for a few points of damage is just wearing down Ser Vardis's stamina or armor, not impaling him. Bronn is very accurate, but has to wear Ser Vardis down over a long, extended fight, and he knows that and employs his strategy accordingly in his iconic fight.I think this point is really interesting, and I see it as the converse of people in Eberron being able to do an informed threat assessment on a mage because they're familiar with magic.

Mechanically, information like this is usually gated behind things like the Battlemaster's "Know Your Enemy" ability. Notably, that ability works outside of combat. What the above quote is implying is that something like Know Your Enemy exists for every combatant in a fight, and they don't make a check or use a bonus action, they just know it. I think that makes sense--even if I'm a novice martial artist, it only takes me a couple of seconds of fighting against an expert to know they're much better than me. The implication that I take from Ludic's comment is that at her table, in answering the question of "what do the NPCs know and how do they know it," Ludic assumes that everyone has a simplified version of "Know your Enemy" and they have that knowledge because real people have similar knowledge in fighting situations.

Thinking on my own DMing style, I do often give out information like this to my players "you can tell from the way that they're clutching their swords that these guys suck." And sometimes the NPCs get it too "as you draw your gleaming holy sword, you smell something awful. It seems one of the guardsmen pooped in his pants." The difference may be one of degree. In my game, the CR 1/2 orc doesn't think there's a huge gap between himself and a 5th-level paladin. A 12th-level paladin? More likely to flee after a short demonstration of the paladin's skill.

:smallsmile:

Yeah, monsters (and PCs) generally have an idea of how scary that attack they just saw is to them, because real fighters make such evaluations all the time. I agree that this enhances realism, rather than the other way around.

Characters don't know what the mechanics are, but they do observe the in-world events that the mechanics are representations/abstractions of -- which works out to being functionally rather similar to knowing the numbers. For example, if you miss the Monk with a 20 Dex/20 Wis AC, you don't just observe that your attack hit or missed, you also observe that they moved like Jackie Chan, and that observation contains a lot of actionable information.


I can't speak for Ludic, but I believe he just meant "the orc guesses what the turtle will be able to do if the orc tries to run past them."

Which, you know, is the kind of thing PCs do all the time. If the party barbarian sees a cluster of guys with bows, they're absolutely going to think about eating an OA to get in on the ranged guys. Doubly, triply true if there's a guy with a spellcasting focus.

oh, I don't know, I haven't been keeping up completely with the discussion. But I think its right to say that monsters have access to similar levels of information to players, at least about 'normal' things.

Yep, pretty much. I think LordShade and Willowhelm are on the same page as you there :smallsmile:

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean for faerun specifically, we do know the level of mages commonly involved. 5th to 10th level mages are very common in that setting, which is why I mentioned it. Even an isolated orc tribe would have heard stories, I think that's pretty unavoidable. After all, I play DND but NPCs 'live' in DND. Much as I may never have seen a missile, but still know what one is (and would even without the internet)
Sure, without the internet, but with radio, and telephone, and television, etc. I don't find the argument compelling because we live in a world where everyone is plugged in. Not only do I know what a missile is, I can watch videos that show me EXACTLY the kind of impact and effect every type of missile will have.

Then there's the question of what is a missile equating to in D&D, because it sounds like epic magic to me. So is the argument that everyone is casually familiar with epic magic as well? Or are they familiar that guns and flamethrowers are a thing? How many people in our world are familiar with crowd control devices that use infrasonics? Maybe we are, on this forum, but the general populace? Do we know every type of esoteric gadgets and gizmos that can be used in battle? I think the answer is no, and we have the internet...

I would expect orcs to be aware that 'running up and hitting the spellcaster to break their concentration' is a thing they've heard about.
I would as well.

In a setting where magic is more scarce, I feel the need to reiterate, this may not be true.
I know Faerun has high magic, but does that mean magic is everywhere? Because I feel like what you're describing is a blend of Eberron's wide magic and Faerun's high magic, where all levels of magic are everywhere and everyone knows everything about it. And this could be the crux of my confusion.

But more generally, dedicated tanks are a rarity in 5e. Very few monsters, and by default very few PCs, have the capacity to really punish enemies who run past them. Hence why I assert that the judgement call of "I can run past them to get to [priority target]" makes sense as an enemy behavior so often, even if its actually wrong. With the example of an isolated orc tribe specifically, I'd probably have them treat the armored guy like they would a small-but-well-equipped orc, and make assumptions accordingly.
Which is interesting because if they know about magic to the degree you're specifying, they should know about NPC champions that make mince meat out of giants and wyverns and ogres, etc.


In general, and I mean this without an ounce of rancor - saying the word 'meta' is the most surefire way to make yourself misunderstood. This is true in any discussion, but doubly or triply true in DND. "Meta" inherently refers to the discourse around the discourse. The thing around the thing. As such its inherently a vacuous concpet.
Truthfully, I do not see how it isn't appropriate here, but I am fine with this.

Oh, well, I would give knowledge of disintegrate to PCs for free, that's never something I'd adjudicate with an Arcana check.
It's a scroll of a spell higher than the level they can cast, hence an Arcana check to identify it.

But more importantly, you said you'd give knowledge to "PCs" for free. So you're not differentiating between anyone when you do this, as you say below. This is in line with what you said above, that everyone would just know this stuff. I don't see a reason for the world to exist this way. But if every caster could be someone that can disintegrate you, it makes perfect sense to go after the caster swat-style.

More accurately, my players know what disintegrate is, and I have to kind of get over it if they do. Socially, its just not worth stopping time to argue over what may or may not be something a character would have learned in their backstory.
Sounds... meta...

The PCs live in a world that I spend small amounts of time reading about, and if a player says "my character heard a story about it in a tavern the other day" they aren't wrong, at least not necessarily. Even something like Meteor Swarm would probably be common knowledge, I mean. It may not have been cast in the area in several centuries, but you can bet people made a story out of it the last time it did.
Yeah but I'm sure you'd agree that the story would be something of a legend, and not a reason to go around thinking every caster can call down flaming rocks from the sky. There's one thing to note a caster is a prime target and another to be paranoid that everyone in a robe is going to rain down destruction on you.

(Asking for checks for such a thing is worse because it creates dumb situations where the barbarian knows what simulacrum is, but the wizard doesn't, because the barbarian rolled a 20 and the wizard rolled a 5. This sort of perverse lore check makes nobody happy.)
But why would the barbarian know that Disintegrate is a high level transmutation spell? From reading a scroll, no less. My barbarian that I play now routinely doesn't make these types of checks because he simply wouldn't know about them.

But of course, a lot of random groups of street thugs or raiders won't be as well-traveled as PCs, which you're right to point out. But its also pretty rare for knowledge of specific spells to be all that relevant in combat, barring maybe something like counterspell, so its overall a wash. I would probably say that everyone knows generalities like "be wary of magic, it can explode a whole lot of you if you're standing together." or "hit the magic guy so he stops turning gorp into a frog!"
Fair point on the specific spells but even the generalities seem very limited to offense. Again, the NPC Mage in the MM has Shield and Misty Step and Fly and Greater Invisibility. Do the orcs or enemy NPCs know that they are going to be chasing this caster around the battlefield because it's going to use Misty Step to evade them after buffing its AC to 20 each round with Shield? It doesn't have to know the specific spells, but on top of "can change me to a frog" do they know "deflects attacks and disappears around the battlefield"? Because all this time they're taking attacks from the barbarian/fighter/paladin/ranger and rogue/monk. In my mind it looks like an episode of the Three Stooges or Tom and Jerry.

Anyways, it irritates me when people overstate their case, and I feel like I'm entering into this territory and I don't want to. I am happy to be corrected that when people say "enemies will ignore you" they mean some enemies, and not all enemies. It has been an interesting conversation and I thank you all for participating so far :smallcool:.

[Bovine Colonel]

I think we should also consider encounter balance for the PCs' character level. Intelligent enemies who aren't aware that they should focus-fire the wizard are also less likely to be able to challenge a party whose wizard is worth focus-firing. When the wizard is enough of an encounter-ending threat that the enemies should run past the front line, the enemies are also more likely to be aware that they should do so.

In Tier 1, a caster PC is generally not as likely to swing an encounter with a single action. Also in Tier 1, the PCs are more likely to run into enemies who know nothing about magic. A village patrol or a group of deserters-turned-brigands or a small orc warband may in fact not have any idea that they should prioritize a powerful caster over other more immediate threats, but they have almost no hope of success against a party with a powerful caster no matter what tactics they use. Their best option against the sorts of spells a caster PC might prefer (Hold Person, Web, Chromatic Orb) is probably just to break concentration when necessary and otherwise treat the caster as a normal ranged combatant. The threats a Tier 1 party faces probably don't know that they should prioritize certain casters as high-value targets, but it doesn't matter because a caster strong enough to be a high-value target is already too powerful for this group of enemies to withstand.

In Tier 2, caster PCs get access to things like Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern. Also in Tier 2, the PCs' actions can affect "the fate of a region" according to the DMG, which I take to mean that the enemies the PCs are fighting are strong enough to threaten or disrupt daily life on a regional scale. The local petty tyrant probably has a court wizard who could tell the soldiers how to identify a caster and some basic tactics to use in case they encounter one. A marauding orc tribe might have a shaman whose job it is to deal with disease or water shortages, or a veteran of previous wars who's seen what the humans can do with magic. At this level, focusing fire on the party wizard is a more appropriate tactic for the enemies to use, and they're also more likely to do so.

In Tier 3, the PCs can dispatch pretty much any threat that's not already aware of what they can do. At this point, as a DM, I would introduce villains who have specifically heard tales or spy reports about the PCs, and are able to plan around their capabilities. The PCs might get the drop on the first few scouting parties sent by the orc warlord leading a unified confederation of tribes, or repel their first attempt to storm a walled city, but after that the warlord will start keeping track of the PCs and coming up with battle plans for the next encounter against them. Maybe once the PCs defeat the warlord the party finds the sorcerer's spell list written down somewhere in the warlord's quarters.

In Tier 4 every enemy the PCs face should either be aware of the PCs' abilities or be strong/numerous enough that the PCs are the ones who have to adapt.


Then there's the question of what is a missile equating to in D&D, because it sounds like epic magic to me. So is the argument that everyone is casually familiar with epic magic as well?
Not everyone, and certainly not epic magic, but people who are likely to run into a given level of magic (i.e. be an encounter for PCs of a given level) are a lot more likely to have some familiarity with that level of magic than a regular farmer would be.

All of this is setting- and table-dependent, of course, but I think it's reasonable for a high-magic setting. But if you expect general agreement on universal monster behavior along the lines of:

I'd argue that before the thread, if you polled the forum with a question like "True or False: Enemies will move past the frontline to target the casters in the back" virtually everyone would circle TRUE.
The answer is "it depends on the table" and anyone who gives a definite answer on behalf of other D&D groups (which is what the question is implicitly asking for) has either misunderstood the purpose of a D&D discussion forum or misunderstood TTRPGs entirely. And while it's possible to go in circles talking online about D&D without actually playing it, I don't think the whole forum is catastrophically mistaken about the thing the forum exists to discuss. On the other hand, if you don't mean for anyone to answer on behalf of other D&D groups, and the hypothetical poll (along with the rest of the thread) is only to ask what happens at the respondent's own table, then this post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25428621&postcount=8) sort of strikes me as implying that other groups are having bad wrong fun. Which I think would explain some of the argumentativeness you're seeing in this thread.

[Veldrenor]

Fair point on the specific spells but even the generalities seem very limited to offense. Again, the NPC Mage in the MM has Shield and Misty Step and Fly and Greater Invisibility. Do the orcs or enemy NPCs know that they are going to be chasing this caster around the battlefield because it's going to use Misty Step to evade them after buffing its AC to 20 each round with Shield? It doesn't have to know the specific spells, but on top of "can change me to a frog" do they know "deflects attacks and disappears around the battlefield"? Because all this time they're taking attacks from the barbarian/fighter/paladin/ranger and rogue/monk. In my mind it looks like an episode of the Three Stooges or Tom and Jerry.


"Each round" and "all this time" being 3-4 rounds at best, then the caster's out of 1st and 2nd level spells and probably won't be pulling those tricks again. And every round that the caster spends misty stepping to get away from the orcs is a round that the caster can't fireball them. It may even be a round where the caster couldn't hurt the orcs at all: without other mitigating factors, the caster has to dash in addition to misty stepping in order to get far enough away that the orcs can't run up and attack him (Misty Step+dash+movement = 90ft = Aggressive+dash+movement). If the orcs are afraid of the caster because casters can blow up crowds of people, then every round that the caster spends not doing that is six more seconds where the orcs are alive. And if the barbarian/fighter/paladin/ranger manages to keep up and hurt them badly enough to be annoying, they just have to knock him prone and that problem's solved.

Depending on the prevalence of magic in the world it's entirely reasonable for orcs to understand all of the above. If magic is common enough that an orc clan has an acolyte shaman, then the orcs absolutely know all the general rules of magic. Acolytes have Bless, so the orcs know that hitting a caster hard enough or knocking them out can end their magic. Acolytes have Sanctuary, so the orcs know that casters can't throw around a lot of big spells in quick succession (action spell or bonus action spell+cantrip, not both). Acolytes have 3 spell slots, so the orcs know that casters can run out of magic.

As to the original question, the monster meta extends beyond "ignore tanks and attack wizards," but what exactly it includes is going to depend on the monster, world, and table in question. I'd say the only broad rule would be that any creature or culture that has a tool/technique/tactic probably knows how to fight against that tool/technique/tactic.

[Witty Username]

I partially disagree with the tier 1 play assessment of casters. At least from my observations, low level spells can end or dramatically effect similarly low level encounters. Spells like Burning hands, Thunderwave, Shatter, grease, web, sleep entangle for non wizards, and magnify gravity for the strange. What changes more is secondary effects like mage armor and shield become more available and the number of encounter ending effect the caster can use in a single day increases.

This does create a bit of a target paradox for monsters though, since a caster that casts a big gun spell in tier 1 could dramatically reduce how Dangerous they are by doing so combined with a caster not casting spells is not an apparent threat. In short, when demonstrated, it is likely too late, and prior to demonstration could be a wasted effort.
The funniest result could be a monster dive bombing a caster that is out of spells, resulting in a chuck of unnecessary damage with it not even being a bad decision based on the info they have.

[Psyren]

I don't think you're putting words in my mouth. I do believe that the online forum meta is exactly "ignore frontline".

Focusing on this as it's a key premise of the thread.

I think the "Meta," insofar as you can say D&D (even forum D&D) even has such a thing, is less "monsters you face will always do this" and more "if you want to be an optimal tank, have an answer for as many scenarios as possible, and this is one that newer players asking for tank help frequently overlook."

[Keravath]

Out of curiosity - how frequently does this "forum meta" of ignoring the front line and attacking the casters happen in actual games played - or is this all just an intellectual exercise about an uncommon event?

In the majority of the games I run or have played - both the PCs and NPCs tend to engage the front line first. Occasionally, either a PC or NPC might go after a caster or enemy in the back if they look like a significant threat. In my observations though, both the PCs and NPCs usually need to have a good reason to put themselves at risk to attack the creatures at the back.

Basically, the question of how the NPCs reason out to attack creatures behind the front line rarely comes up. The main reason for this in my experience is that a front line (with suitable terrain) limits the attacks either the PCs or NPCs are subject to at one time. If a PC or NPC dives into the backfield to attack a specific opponent they leave themselves open to being swarmed. Depending on level, gear, number of opponents, abilities of opponents and terrain - running into the back to attack a caster might be a VERY bad idea for either PCs or NPCs - so honestly, in practice, I rarely see it happen either in games I run or those I play in.

So, how often have you played in games where the enemies completely ignore front line opponents to dive past them and attack someone standing at the back?

[Dr.Samurai]

I think we should also consider encounter balance for the PCs' character level. Intelligent enemies who aren't aware that they should focus-fire the wizard are also less likely to be able to challenge a party whose wizard is worth focus-firing. When the wizard is enough of an encounter-ending threat that the enemies should run past the front line, the enemies are also more likely to be aware that they should do so.
Makes sense. But I think the crux is "how much do your NPCs know about combat magic", or something to that effect. For the beings with magic, whether they are NPC wizards or demons, it's expected they know. But for others, I am not so sure. We've seen the claims here; NPCs should simply just know what the PCs know, and the PCs essentially just know everything. So in essence the game world is operating as if everyone has a copy of the PHB.

The response to my pushback has been "People should know what they do, they have been in the world longer than you have". Of course, this is a different claim to basically saying they know everything.

Not everyone, and certainly not epic magic, but people who are likely to run into a given level of magic (i.e. be an encounter for PCs of a given level) are a lot more likely to have some familiarity with that level of magic than a regular farmer would be.
I'm not sure why this would be the case. Stone Giants are CR 7. Does that mean they just "know" about 4th level spells, and when they encounter a party they know what the wizard or cleric is going to be casting?

Of course NPCs live in the world and have some sort of background before they encounter the PCs. I'm not convinced that background is "has fought or knows people that have fought high level spellcasters".

All of this is setting- and table-dependent, of course, but I think it's reasonable for a high-magic setting. But if you expect general agreement on universal monster behavior along the lines of:

The answer is "it depends on the table" and anyone who gives a definite answer on behalf of other D&D groups (which is what the question is implicitly asking for) has either misunderstood the purpose of a D&D discussion forum or misunderstood TTRPGs entirely. And while it's possible to go in circles talking online about D&D without actually playing it, I don't think the whole forum is catastrophically mistaken about the thing the forum exists to discuss.
Well, are you considering the handful of people in this thread to be "the whole forum"? Because if so, then you may be surprised. I don't want to push the issue too much because I am okay with where this conversation has gone. But if you consider the advice that is normally doled out, along with the features that are considered "aggro" features (strong OAs, Totemic Attunment: Bear, Thunder Gauntlets, etc), then you understand that an enemy HAS TO engage with the frontline first, otherwise no aggro occurs before ignoring the tank (in these discussions). So this was never about going around the frontline, or aiming at the backline from a distance. All of those responses are interesting, but aren't refutations to what I'm talking about. We're talking about enemies that engage the frontline and then decide it's better for them to ignore the frontline and move past them to the backline. And to get a sense of what you need to consider when answering that question, please see Keravath's post above, or my previous post re chasing the orcs around after the wizard. In other words, consider the next turn of actions after your enemy has moved past the frontline and eaten an OA. Then what? Because, everyone has some sense that the monsters are operating on tactical information and think this is the best course of action, so they're rushing the wizard thinking something positive is going to happen in their favor.

On the other hand, if you don't mean for anyone to answer on behalf of other D&D groups, and the hypothetical poll (along with the rest of the thread) is only to ask what happens at the respondent's own table, then this post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25428621&postcount=8) sort of strikes me as implying that other groups are having bad wrong fun. Which I think would explain some of the argumentativeness you're seeing in this thread.
Well, I don't want to get too into it since, despite my efforts to keep things clarified and keep us all on the same page, I was reported and received a warning from the mods.

But I think my position is the opposite; there isn't *ONE* style of play. Now, it seems to me that the forum has been advising people since the the beginning of recorded history that monsters will run past the frontline and ignore them for higher priority threats. I have clearly received a lot of correction on this, including most recently from Psyren, today. I have said, numerous times now, that I am happy to be corrected on this. But I disagree with your comment on the argumentativeness, and won't elaborate further so as not to risk retaliation.

"Each round" and "all this time" being 3-4 rounds at best, then the caster's out of 1st and 2nd level spells and probably won't be pulling those tricks again. And every round that the caster spends misty stepping to get away from the orcs is a round that the caster can't fireball them.
It goes like this:

1. Orcs run past frontline, eat OAs, attack Wizard. Wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
2. Frontline flanks orcs and unleashes attacks. Wizard Misty Steps away on the other side of the fighter/monk/barbarian/etc., throws cantrip.
3. Orcs run after wizard again, eat more OAs, attack wizard, wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
4. Frontline flanks orcs again, unleashes attacks.

This is just a bog standard NPC Mage, not an optimized PC multi-classed uber monstrosity. At some point, when do the orcs realize they should stand and fight instead of chasing the wizard with Shield? You are thinking "the wizard isn't casting Fireball, so that's a WIN for the orcs", meanwhile the other characters are attacking them with impunity.

Depending on the prevalence of magic in the world it's entirely reasonable for orcs to understand all of the above. If magic is common enough that an orc clan has an acolyte shaman, then the orcs absolutely know all the general rules of magic. Acolytes have Bless, so the orcs know that hitting a caster hard enough or knocking them out can end their magic. Acolytes have Sanctuary, so the orcs know that casters can't throw around a lot of big spells in quick succession (action spell or bonus action spell+cantrip, not both). Acolytes have 3 spell slots, so the orcs know that casters can run out of magic.
Sure. It seems to me that staying spread apart, using cover, and ranged attacks (all when possible) while maintaining a frontline, would be a more sensible tactic than "rush the wizard", unless there was some really great opportunity that presents itself. Especially if you're making the case that orcs have Acolytes and Shamans... then shouldn't they be there in the fight as well? And if so, and they have the similar magic to make orcs experts, shouldn't there be a frontline to protect them too while they blast the PCs?

Out of curiosity - how frequently does this "forum meta" of ignoring the front line and attacking the casters happen in actual games played - or is this all just an intellectual exercise about an uncommon event?
This may go without saying but my suspicion, and experience, is that it is the latter.

[Psyren]

It goes like this:

1. Orcs run past frontline, eat OAs, attack Wizard. Wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
2. Frontline flanks orcs and unleashes attacks. Wizard Misty Steps away on the other side of the fighter/monk/barbarian/etc., throws cantrip.
3. Orcs run after wizard again, eat more OAs, attack wizard, wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
4. Frontline flanks orcs again, unleashes attacks.

This is just a bog standard NPC Mage, not an optimized PC multi-classed uber monstrosity. At some point, when do the orcs realize they should stand and fight instead of chasing the wizard with Shield? You are thinking "the wizard isn't casting Fireball, so that's a WIN for the orcs", meanwhile the other characters are attacking them with impunity.

Without agreeing that all orcs would adopt the exact tactics you describe - the frontliners would be attacking them anyway though. The only real difference between standing and running past is the OAs, and if there are considerably more orcs than there are frontliners, then the threat of X OAs landing vs. the threat of Y orcs being caught in a fireball because they're all conveniently clustered away from the wizard and his allies can tip the scales considerably.

Put another way - if you have 5 melee orcs vs. 2 melee in the party's frontline, it's certainly possible that all 5 of the orcs would stay at the frontline to avoid two of their number getting swung at for trying to dart past. But it's also possible that they recognize the wizard as a threat (or even that the 6th orc, their shaman, does so and barks orders) and decide that up to two of their number being swung at greatly outweighs the consequences of all 5 (6) of them being fried if they stay put.

Will considerably dumber enemies like ogres or animals make this calculation? Unlikely. Would a squad of Drow elites? It's not impossible, and so frontliners that can respond to that have an edge over the ones that can't.

[Elder_Basilisk]

I think there's a few misconceptions floating in around.

1. Just because there's no acolyte or shaman in the encounter doesn't mean the orcs shouldn't have direct first hand experience with magic. Consider what may be a fairly typical scenario: there is ano orc tribe with 500 orcs in the wilderness. Said orc tribe has a shaman with an apprentice and pretty frequently fights skirmishes or raids with other orc tribes as well as the humans in the borderlands who recently built a keep and have been expanding into the frontier in the last twenty years.

In this scenario, you would expect that any raiding party of 5 to 20 orcs would be all warriors. The shaman won't be encountered unless the tribe is mustering it's fighting strength for a big attack or raid. The smaller 5 to 20 orc raids are just young warriors looking for wealth and glory. But they all have firsthand experience with their own shaman and his acolyte and many probably have first or secondhand experience with the shamans of rival tribes or human casters responding to their raids (or raiding them).

2. In the NPC mage example where he just uses shield and misty steps around, the orcs have not accomplished anything in return for the OAs they took. In the scenario described, they prevented him from casting his top level offensive spells in several rounds and ate up his spell points casting shield when he would otherwise have cast offensive spells against them. And if he's been misty stepping further away each time, they may have isolated him as well. That may or may not be a win, but it's definitely not accomplishing nothing.

[Dr.Samurai]

Without agreeing that all orcs would adopt the exact tactics you describe
Rather, the tactics others have described in this thread, suggesting that rushing in numbers would give the orcs (or whichever enemies) a confidence that the frontline can't hit all of them with their limited OAs and therefore the tactic is worth it.

- the frontliners would be attacking them anyway though.
But the frontliners would also be taking damage in return. In the scenario above, ONLY the orcs are taking damage. If there is a hypothetical "shaman", it would be their sole responsibility to dispatch everyone else, while the orcs rush after the wizard that is casting Shield each turn (up to 4 turns in a row).

The only real difference between standing and running past is the OAs, and if there are considerably more orcs than there are frontliners, then the threat of X OAs landing vs. the threat of Y orcs being caught in a fireball because they're all conveniently clustered away from the wizard and his allies can tip the scales considerably.
In this sense the orcs are essentially kamikaze units, because they aren't harming anyone, just delaying the wizard from casting fireball.

It goes back to my question, which hardly anyone has engaged with... the orcs know about Fireball, do they know about Shield? Do they know about Misty Step? Do they know about Greater Invisibility and Fly?

Right now the orcs think "Wizard can cast Fireball, we can rush in and kill wizard". Why is that what they think if it isn't true? I agree with everyone if the orcs think "Fireball is dangerous, wizard is a high priority" because that is true. But if they think "running in together and focusing on the wizard will lead to victory" I don't understand how they think that given that people have established the enemies should know everything the PCs know.


Put another way - if you have 5 melee orcs vs. 2 melee in the party's frontline, it's certainly possible that all 5 of the orcs would stay at the frontline to avoid two of their number getting swung at for trying to dart past. But it's also possible that they recognize the wizard as a threat (or even that the 6th orc, their shaman, does so and barks orders) and decide that up to two of their number being swung at greatly outweighs the consequences of all 5 (6) of them being fried if they stay put.
I agree.

1. Just because there's no acolyte or shaman in the encounter doesn't mean the orcs shouldn't have direct first hand experience with magic. Consider what may be a fairly typical scenario: there is ano orc tribe with 500 orcs in the wilderness. Said orc tribe has a shaman with an apprentice and pretty frequently fights skirmishes or raids with other orc tribes as well as the humans in the borderlands who recently built a keep and have been expanding into the frontier in the last twenty years.

In this scenario, you would expect that any raiding party of 5 to 20 orcs would be all warriors. The shaman won't be encountered unless the tribe is mustering it's fighting strength for a big attack or raid. The smaller 5 to 20 orc raids are just young warriors looking for wealth and glory. But they all have firsthand experience with their own shaman and his acolyte and many probably have first or secondhand experience with the shamans of rival tribes or human casters responding to their raids (or raiding them).
Well in a previous post I explain that Volo's mentions nothing to suggest war magic for orcs. Their spellcasters stay at home to protect the cave while the warriors are away. None of them are arcane spellcasters.

That said, if you believe they do have first hand experience with magic, I'll ask my question again, are they familiar with all the ways the wizard is going to evade them?

2. In the NPC mage example where he just uses shield and misty steps around, the orcs have not accomplished anything in return for the OAs they took. In the scenario described, they prevented him from casting his top level offensive spells in several rounds and ate up his spell points casting shield when he would otherwise have cast offensive spells against them. And if he's been misty stepping further away each time, they may have isolated him as well. That may or may not be a win, but it's definitely not accomplishing nothing.
There is no reason for the mage to misty step further and further away. They can Misty Step on the other side of the fighters if they want. They don't even have to Misty Step. The point is to illustrate how far are you going to take this "tactic"? If the wizard casts Shield and tanks the rush of attacks, and then blips away, does the tactic still hold? Do they just chase the wizard down? If not, did they anticipate this tactic or, as I keep asking, do they only know about Fireball and Sleep? There's more questions but this is the point.

With regards to "accomplishing something", they are attempting to not die. You can look at it as "keeping the wizard on their toes and stopping them from casting Fireball" or you could look at it as "being kited by the wizard while the fighter and rogue take them down each turn".

EDIT: To make the point a little more clear, I'll use what is, admittedly, an imperfect analogy. If the enemy NPCs really "know" about casters the way people have suggested in this thread, then really the reaction to them would be something more akin to Trinity at the end of the The Matrix when Neo is trapped at the subway station with Smith. She says "Run, Neo". Why? Because Smith is going to dodge all of Neo's bullets and move faster than Neo can track and hit him super hard, etc. On the rooftop, we see how the Agents react to gunfire. They dodge all of it (read: Shield spell). No one in the Matrix universe thinks that the best tactic against an Agent is "dogpile them until we kill them". And yet, in D&D land, where casters are going to dodge all your attacks and blip away from you (or turn invisible or fly into the sky, etc), we think NPCs believe "we can kill them if we run right at them".

It seems to me if you believe that monsters have this sort of de facto knowledge of PC abilities, you have to reevaluate how they would react to PCs in combat. Most of the time I don't think it will be "rush forward and bypass the frontline and attack the wizard".

[Psyren]

I think there's a few misconceptions floating in around.

1. Just because there's no acolyte or shaman in the encounter doesn't mean the orcs shouldn't have direct first hand experience with magic. Consider what may be a fairly typical scenario: there is ano orc tribe with 500 orcs in the wilderness. Said orc tribe has a shaman with an apprentice and pretty frequently fights skirmishes or raids with other orc tribes as well as the humans in the borderlands who recently built a keep and have been expanding into the frontier in the last twenty years.

In this scenario, you would expect that any raiding party of 5 to 20 orcs would be all warriors. The shaman won't be encountered unless the tribe is mustering it's fighting strength for a big attack or raid. The smaller 5 to 20 orc raids are just young warriors looking for wealth and glory. But they all have firsthand experience with their own shaman and his acolyte and many probably have first or secondhand experience with the shamans of rival tribes or human casters responding to their raids (or raiding them).

When I say shaman I'm not necessarily talking about the head honcho spiritual leader of the whole tribe nor even their apprentice - it can be some other martial raider with magical knowledge like a skald (valor bard with drums?) or totem warrior or a paladin etc. I agree that full casters in a stereotypical tribe like this would be rare in the fiction, but that doesn't mean orcs that can reasonably

And yes, I agree you don't necessarily need a magic-using orc at all to identify another race's spellcaster. But if my goal is to minimize arguments or immersion breaks at the table, sticking such a character among the enemy forces is a pretty small asking price :smallsmile:



2. In the NPC mage example where he just uses shield and misty steps around, the orcs have not accomplished anything in return for the OAs they took. In the scenario described, they prevented him from casting his top level offensive spells in several rounds and ate up his spell points casting shield when he would otherwise have cast offensive spells against them. And if he's been misty stepping further away each time, they may have isolated him as well. That may or may not be a win, but it's definitely not accomplishing nothing.

Agreed, they might not have taken the mage out but they forced him to burn resources repositioning and they're now in the thick of it with the mage's allies, drastically limiting his AoE options unless he's an evoker (and even then the party is taking half damage unless they have evasion.)



But the frontliners would also be taking damage in return. In the scenario above, ONLY the orcs are taking damage.

Well, maybe. Do all the orcs go prior to the wizard's next turn? How do orcs 3-5 react upon seeing the wizard do a quick chant/arm-wave and then see #1 and #2's weapons carom off an invisible barrier? What does the wizard do now that the orcs are not conveniently positioned outside of his frontline? Are there flanking rules in play? etc.


If there is a hypothetical "shaman", it would be their sole responsibility to dispatch everyone else, while the orcs rush after the wizard that is casting Shield each turn (up to 4 turns in a row).

Again, maybe. Does the frontline go after the shaman, or do they turn and deal with the orcs who just ran past them? Can the shaman cast shield and misty step himself?



It goes back to my question, which hardly anyone has engaged with... the orcs know about Fireball, do they know about Shield? Do they know about Misty Step? Do they know about Greater Invisibility and Fly?

It depends. As does their actions for knowing vs. not knowing vs. learning mid-fight.

[greenstone]

As much as their Intelligence and Wisdom scores, and their general experiences would let them know.

Agreed.

Animals attack whoever is closest, and run away when wounded (unless the animal is protecting young in which case it attacks whoever is clolsest to its babies and fights to the death).

Mindless creatures attack whoever is closest and keep attacking until that target stops moving.

Other creatures attack as per their intelligence and wisdom. Smart foes will prioritise archers and casters.

All sapient monsters know, and use, grappling and shoving and nonlethal blows and so on.

All sapient monsters know when to fold, either running or surrendering depending on their nature. Bandits will probably run, mercenaries will probably surrender, cultists will probably fight to the death (dying with the name of their cult leader frothing on their lips).

One exception to this is that monsters generally don't keep hitting downed PCs. While it makes sense in the fiction for a foe to make sure targets are dead, dead, dead; it sucks for a player to have a monster deliver multiple failed death saves to their character.

As always, begin and and with the fiction.

[Melphizard]

Haven't checked all the posts here but entirely agree with Greenstone.

Animals, unless trained or well-experienced, will normally go for whatever's closest. Sometimes a giant crocodile who's been menacing the town has experienced battle with some guards and knows that armor is hard to bite through. If animals are in groups they will try to pile-on one creature (especially in the case of pack tactics).

Dumb creatures like trolls attack the closest enemy until they die. If they have vulnerabilities like Yetis, they may avoid or prioritize enemies with fire or flaming weapons depending on their bravery/moral.

Smarter creatures may know to shove the high armored people or avoid them in favor of attacking the squishier people; however, unless incredibly well-versed in combat, they should consider monks and barbarians with unarmored defense to be easy targets (despite stats proving otherwise), especially characters who fight unarmed.

Humanoid/Intelligent creatures get to do special tactics and may have some strategy of their own. Typically, any group of enemies that has a spellcaster I play as if they're PCs, albeit a little lessened due to having a bias because of my knowledge and experience with the party. Sometimes, they recognize spells (or spellcasters) and will shout out to stop them and/or get close to inhibit their casting.

Superiorly intelligent creatures such as party antagonists, mindflayers, ect., will try to scout the party and lay an ambush with knowledge of who they are and what tactics may work. If a wizard expects the party or hears they've killed some guards, have them send their familiar to get a read on the party before preparing contingencies such as glyphs.

Finally,
One exception to this is that monsters generally don't keep hitting downed PCs. While it makes sense in the fiction for a foe to make sure targets are dead, dead, dead; it sucks for a player to have a monster deliver multiple failed death saves to their character.
This!

[Bovine Colonel]

I'm not sure why this would be the case. Stone Giants are CR 7. Does that mean they just "know" about 4th level spells, and when they encounter a party they know what the wizard or cleric is going to be casting?

Of course NPCs live in the world and have some sort of background before they encounter the PCs. I'm not convinced that background is "has fought or knows people that have fought high level spellcasters".
I'm only presenting a broad pattern that would make sense at my own table. The general answer is still "depends on the encounter and the table."


Well, are you considering the handful of people in this thread to be "the whole forum"? Because if so, then you may be surprised. I don't want to push the issue too much because I am okay with where this conversation has gone. But if you consider the advice that is normally doled out, along with the features that are considered "aggro" features (strong OAs, Totemic Attunment: Bear, Thunder Gauntlets, etc), then you understand that an enemy HAS TO engage with the frontline first, otherwise no aggro occurs before ignoring the tank (in these discussions). So this was never about going around the frontline, or aiming at the backline from a distance. All of those responses are interesting, but aren't refutations to what I'm talking about. We're talking about enemies that engage the frontline and then decide it's better for them to ignore the frontline and move past them to the backline. And to get a sense of what you need to consider when answering that question, please see Keravath's post above, or my previous post re chasing the orcs around after the wizard. In other words, consider the next turn of actions after your enemy has moved past the frontline and eaten an OA. Then what? Because, everyone has some sense that the monsters are operating on tactical information and think this is the best course of action, so they're rushing the wizard thinking something positive is going to happen in their favor.

I think this pattern has mostly to do with the fact that this is a place where players ask for character optimization advice (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25430388&postcount=146). If I want to make a melee sword-wielding tank based on my cool character from FF14 or WoW or whatever, I'm going to be really unsatisfied if the forum's answer is "play a ranged character instead, because the enemies are just going to shoot your wizard or move around you instead of engaging you directly." There's a basic assumption, then, that melee characters can do something in most encounters. It's not necessarily that melee enemies are engaging the tank and then choosing to go after the wizard instead, it's that the tank can use a basic 30 ft movement to engage melee enemies and then use tools like attacks of opportunity or Spirit Guardians to keep them engaged. Some encounters can get around this with flight or some kind of terrain advantage, but otherwise the melee monsters' only way to avoid mass-engaging the tank is to split up, which is beneficial for the PCs since the monsters can no longer concentrate force on one target.

Plus, if you look at Ludic's build thread you can see that the tank builds tend to have other ways to contribute when the enemies aren't directly engaging them in melee. For example builds 1 and 4 of the OP (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23794664&postcount=1), which are less specifically focused on damage, have a strong Eldritch Blast and a cleric spell list for non-melee encounters respectively. This build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23837856&postcount=45) has a wizard spell list. This build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23917496&postcount=103) has a pretty effective javelin throw. This build (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24673886&postcount=511) can apply Ancestral Protectors with a javelin throw and put an echo on terrain that's otherwise hard to reach.


It goes like this:

1. Orcs run past frontline, eat OAs, attack Wizard. Wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
2. Frontline flanks orcs and unleashes attacks. Wizard Misty Steps away on the other side of the fighter/monk/barbarian/etc., throws cantrip.
3. Orcs run after wizard again, eat more OAs, attack wizard, wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
4. Frontline flanks orcs again, unleashes attacks.

This is just a bog standard NPC Mage, not an optimized PC multi-classed uber monstrosity. At some point, when do the orcs realize they should stand and fight instead of chasing the wizard with Shield? You are thinking "the wizard isn't casting Fireball, so that's a WIN for the orcs", meanwhile the other characters are attacking them with impunity.

Sure. It seems to me that staying spread apart, using cover, and ranged attacks (all when possible) while maintaining a frontline, would be a more sensible tactic than "rush the wizard", unless there was some really great opportunity that presents itself. Especially if you're making the case that orcs have Acolytes and Shamans... then shouldn't they be there in the fight as well? And if so, and they have the similar magic to make orcs experts, shouldn't there be a frontline to protect them too while they blast the PCs?

This may go without saying but my suspicion, and experience, is that it is the latter.
I suppose I should point out that the NPC mage is based on a 9th-level caster. If I were playing an NPC mage statblock against an encounter of orcs numerous enough to challenge my 9th-level party, I wouldn't even waste a turn on Misty Step unless we'd blundered into some kind of ambush. One Fireball should decisively swing the encounter even if the orcs are trying to rush the mage.

Given that we're discussing tanks and it's safe to assume the party has one, I'd argue that if the orcs' (or other melee monsters') attacks are not strong enough to threaten the wizard (or bard, or other caster) and the orcs are not too numerous for melee characters' attacks to decide the combat over 2 rounds then the scenario isn't really worth considering because the orcs have absolutely no chance of victory no matter what they do. The encounter is not a credible threat to this group of PCs. If the orcs attack the wizard, the wizard casts Shield and Misty Step and takes no damage. If the orcs attack the tank, the tank has an AC of "yes" and takes no damage, or has resistances and doesn't take enough damage to really matter before the party wins the encounter by having bigger damage numbers than the enemies. Other party members also have ways to avoid damage: the rogue can Cunning Action backward, the cleric has armor and healing spells, and so on.

EDIT in response to Tanarii's post below: I should specify that I'm only looking at victory or defeat in one encounter. If it's a whole adventuring day, then...well I don't think the orcs' chances change all that much but their victory condition could change considerably. Of course at that point we're all the way back to "depends on the table and the encounter."


EDIT: To make the point a little more clear, I'll use what is, admittedly, an imperfect analogy. If the enemy NPCs really "know" about casters the way people have suggested in this thread, then really the reaction to them would be something more akin to Trinity at the end of the The Matrix when Neo is trapped at the subway station with Smith. She says "Run, Neo". Why? Because Smith is going to dodge all of Neo's bullets and move faster than Neo can track and hit him super hard, etc. On the rooftop, we see how the Agents react to gunfire. They dodge all of it (read: Shield spell). No one in the Matrix universe thinks that the best tactic against an Agent is "dogpile them until we kill them". And yet, in D&D land, where casters are going to dodge all your attacks and blip away from you (or turn invisible or fly into the sky, etc), we think NPCs believe "we can kill them if we run right at them".

It seems to me if you believe that monsters have this sort of de facto knowledge of PC abilities, you have to reevaluate how they would react to PCs in combat. Most of the time I don't think it will be "rush forward and bypass the frontline and attack the wizard".
As you say (and I acknowledge that this isn't the same context, but I think it's still true), the orcs' only option is to run. Personally I wouldn't want to play at a D&D table where all of the encounters run away from you, and of course encounters too weak to threaten the party are not really relevant to discussions on an optimization forum except as a resource sink. To be honest I find they feel like a waste of time at the table as well. Rather than a 6-8 encounter adventuring day, give me a few encounters instead where it's possible to lose a PC by making bad decisions.

[Tanarii]

It goes like this:

1. Orcs run past frontline, eat OAs, attack Wizard. Wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
2. Frontline flanks orcs and unleashes attacks. Wizard Misty Steps away on the other side of the fighter/monk/barbarian/etc., throws cantrip.
3. Orcs run after wizard again, eat more OAs, attack wizard, wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
4. Frontline flanks orcs again, unleashes attacks.
Two Shields and a Misty step, at a level when Orcs are a significant encounter? That's a win for the Orc tribe. At this rate the PCs invading their domain don't have a chance and will TPK for sure. The Wizard won't survive the third encounter.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Well in a previous post I explain that Volo's mentions nothing to suggest war magic for orcs. Their spellcasters stay at home to protect the cave while the warriors are away. None of them are arcane spellcasters.

I think the point is that even the tribal orcs in a fairly limited magic scenario would, in fact, be reasonably expected to have [I]firsthand[/] experience with magic in general. It is also likely that at least some of them firsthand experience with arcane casting and war magic (the ones who were present in skirmishes or major battles with the humans from the keep) and that all of them have secondhand experience with such magic courtesy of relatives who survived those battles. Hearsay info from epics and oral tradition would probably be ubiquitous even if it was more pointing toward the potential power of magic (turn you into pigs, fascinate you and hold you helpless etc) rather than providing detailed mechanics.


That said, if you believe they do have first hand experience with magic, I'll ask my question again, are they familiar with all the ways the wizard is going to evade them?

That's asking for a much more detailed level of knowledge. "Wizards can do bad stuff if you let them do whatever they want so hit them in the face with a stick till they stop moving, then hit them a few more times to be sure" doesn't require sophisticated knowledge of their capabilities. That they can also block your swords with magic and teleport away, is a step further toward more specific knowledge and "but if you keep at it, sooner or later they'll run out of power and you'll be able to hit them with the axe" or "that's why you grapple them and let your friend hit them in the face with an axe" would represent further specific and detailed knowledge.

So I would guess that most know that they are dangerous if left unmolested and some know that they can evade and defend with magic too and a few have more detailed knowledge and know there are ways to counter the evasion and defense and that wizards can't do that forever.


There is no reason for the mage to misty step further and further away. They can Misty Step on the other side of the fighters if they want. They don't even have to Misty Step. The point is to illustrate how far are you going to take this "tactic"? If the wizard casts Shield and tanks the rush of attacks, and then blips away, does the tactic still hold? Do they just chase the wizard down? If not, did they anticipate this tactic or, as I keep asking, do they only know about Fireball and Sleep? There's more questions but this is the point.

With regards to "accomplishing something", they are attempting to not die. You can look at it as "keeping the wizard on their toes and stopping them from casting Fireball" or you could look at it as "being kited by the wizard while the fighter and rogue take them down each turn".

If they were just attempting to not die, they'd run away immediately. They're trying to kill and loot the PCs. Trying to win looks very different from trying not to lose.

But if two orcs is enough to keep the wizard on misty step and shield duty for three rounds, that lets a couple more pressure the rogue. Assuming there are enough orcs that they have a conceivable path to victory, they can either leave a couple orcs to keep the tanks occupied while others eventually chase down the rogue and wizard or they can keep the rogue and wizard running and dogpile the tanks. (And even if they don't have a victory path, using all the misty step and shields draining the wizard's spell slots isn't a bad resource drain for a low level encounter. The evil overlord will be satisfied with that result even if the orcs aren't.)

[Veldrenor]

It goes like this:

1. Orcs run past frontline, eat OAs, attack Wizard. Wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
2. Frontline flanks orcs and unleashes attacks. Wizard Misty Steps away on the other side of the fighter/monk/barbarian/etc., throws cantrip.
3. Orcs run after wizard again, eat more OAs, attack wizard, wizard casts Shield, is unscathed.
4. Frontline flanks orcs again, unleashes attacks.

This is just a bog standard NPC Mage, not an optimized PC multi-classed uber monstrosity. At some point, when do the orcs realize they should stand and fight instead of chasing the wizard with Shield? You are thinking "the wizard isn't casting Fireball, so that's a WIN for the orcs", meanwhile the other characters are attacking them with impunity.


What does the battlefield look like? If the orcs are attacking you in a 10ft-wide hallway then yeah, fair enough, except in a 10ft hallway the frontline probably occupies the width of the hallway so the orcs can't run past anyway. But if you're fighting in a room or outside then it goes:
1. Orcs run around the frontline because movement in 5e is non-euclidean. No OAs, orcs attack Wizard. Wizard casts Shield and may be unscathed; if wizard+shield=20AC then the orcs still have a 25% chance to hit normally and 5% to crit, and 1d12+3 damage is a bigger deal to the wizard than the fighter.
2. Frontline flanks orcs and unleashes attacks. Wizard Misty Steps away on the other side of the fighter/monk/barbarian/etc., throws cantrip if he doesn't mind risking getting hit next turn. If he does mind then he dashes instead.
3. Orcs run after wizard again, eat a number of OAs less than or equal to the number of creatures in the front line, attack Wizard. Wizard casts Shield and may be unscathed or may take damage.




Especially if you're making the case that orcs have Acolytes and Shamans... then shouldn't they be there in the fight as well?

Again, that depends. In what context is the party fighting orcs and what is orc culture like in the world of this hypothetical? Is the party attacking an orc village, fighting a warband, or fighting a scouting party? If we're going with what's in Volo's then the answer is no unless the party is attacking their home. The orc casters stay home, where all the young orcs are learning how to be warriors.

[Tanarii]

if wizard+shield=20AC then the orcs still have a 25% chance to hit normally and 5% to crit, and 1d12+3 damage is a bigger deal to the wizard than the fighter.
A Wizard/sorcerer is usually going to have AC 11-12 in Tier 1 unless they already blew 1/4 of their spells on Mage Armor (unlikely in the extreme IMX) or Multiclassing dips are allowed for armor. And in the latter case, they look more like Clerics in terms of enemy assessment of squishy-ness, so it's an entirely different paradigm we need to discuss.

[Witty Username]

So, in this Orcs attacking the mage and the mage flees, what is the incentive to attack the front line? A Mage NPC will hurl a 2d10 cantrip every round, definitely dangerous for an Orc, the fronline will likely end up 30+ feat away and potentially unable to attack at all. Surely, an Orc can at least understand that swords are melee weapons.

This amounts to the 'Truism' being discussed. Assuming you are trying to give meaningful advice to a potential tank player, "You need methods to get and keep the attention of enemies, otherwise they will ignore you" is meaningful advice, a careful speaker will have some language in addition like periodically or depending on the situation or give examples of scenarios that the tank has difficulty contributing. This does assume some amount of threat assessment for monsters, but that doesn't seem to be a problem given this point:


Full disclosure, I've never liked these arguments. It seems kind of ridiculous that a monster would ignore the armored warrior swinging the sword at its face
This assumes the monster knows that an armed and armored warrior is threatening, and for some (Orcs, Goblins, Wolves, Humans) this may even be true in the rules. But how does a monster know that: prior experience, academic learning, combat training? All of which could apply to fantastical elements as well. You could even end up with enemies that have more experience with casters then traditional warriors, that will prioritize casters against all reason.

But what does this mean for the Truism? Take these Orcs, they could make decisions based on RP or tactical imperative or even the will of the dice gods. Some of those decisions are attacking the caster, some the warrior. If the warrior is not always the chosen target, then the caster needs to have a plan for when they are the target and the warrior a plan when they are not because "If you don't have a method of getting and keeping the attention of enemies, they will ignore you."

[Dr.Samurai]

This is why I am skeptical of the claim that I've just misunderstood the forum all along.

People have replied that the forum is only suggesting that to be the very best tank, you need to be able to contend with some creatures that will sometimes ignore you and move past you. Literally these words or words like them have never been uttered on this forum until now, in this thread, but this is the assertion in response to my claim in the OP.

Ok, no problem. I have conceded this point several times now.

But then, at every other opportunity, I get, what I consider to be, way too much pushback in response to other points people make. It makes it seem like others want to keep the truism alive, all while telling me the truism isn't real.

Re: CR 9 Mage

The point is not about being encounter worthy or exactly how many Shields will the Mage expend or if they need to Misty Step, etc.

The point is that in seeking to understand what exactly monsters know about casters, I was told that they know they can turn them into frogs, they know that they can cast Disintegrate. The MM happens to have an NPC wizard smack dab in the middle of Polymorph and Disintegrate, the Mage. I asked if NPCs are also aware of the many ways casters can foil them (Shield, Misty Step, Greater Invisibility, Fly, etc), AND IF SO, would they still believe the tactic of rushing in at the caster is the best tactic. Notice in response to my simple example, we went from "the NPCs taking out the biggest threat" to "the NPCs draining the resources of the Caster" to "the orcs should just run away because the wizard is too strong" to "the orcs have sacrificed themselves to deplete the caster, TPK by 3rd encounter".

I literally mentioned all of this in my second post; that the wizard won't just be killed with a single attack, that the enemies are going to die. When I called it a kamikaze move, that was also questioned. Here we are, 5 pages later, and we're finally coming around to the idea that the orcs would be sacrificing themselves (spun to be exactly what the orcs intended all along, FOR THE HORDE!) and the wizard won't be dead. Or that if the orcs are somehow aware they are fighting a CR 9 Mage instead of a level 3 PC Wizard (how would they know that? who knows), they would run instead of attempt their tried and true rushing technique.

So when I ask "what are the NPCs thinking?" we have moved from "it's worth running past the swordsman because the wizard can kill us more easily" to "it's worth sacrificing my life to deplete the wizard's resources, for the good of my tribe". The NPCs have literally gone from self preservation to suicidal altruism all to keep the truism intact.

That said, it does answer my question. What are the NPCs thinking when they engage in these tactics? It depends on if they win or lose :smallamused:.


Re: Firsthand and Secondhand Knowledge

I generally agree. Of course there will be stories and people will have experienced something firsthand or heard it about it from others they trust, etc.

But among those tales will ALSO be those that killed mages, with ease even. Those that shrugged off magic and killed the caster that hurled it at them. Those that pulled the fingers off mages and fed them to their aurochs to see if its true that they'll breed enormous twins when fed the fingers of wizards, etc. Warriors that scoff at the mention of elven mages, because they've killed them in battle before. It's not obvious to me that these NPCs would tell others "The key to taking down a wizard is that we have to have severe tunnel vision and just keep chasing them around until we are dead or they are dead". But this severe tunnel vision has just been justified as "depleting caster spell slots and contributing to caster death in the future".

If you think the truism is "it depends", then just stick with that. Don't try to argue the point every time because it won't make sense. That's the point of saying "it depends" lol.



This amounts to the 'Truism' being discussed. Assuming you are trying to give meaningful advice to a potential tank player, "You need methods to get and keep the attention of enemies, otherwise they will ignore you" is meaningful advice, a careful speaker will have some language in addition like periodically or depending on the situation or give examples of scenarios that the tank has difficulty contributing.
A careful speaker would word the truism entirely differently, because what you've just said there is "if you don't have a way to keep enemy attention, they will ignore you". This is precisely what is said on these forums all the time when discussing tanks, and it means exactly what it says. No one thinks to be careful because they are saying precisely what they mean.

Love the name BTW :smallamused:

This assumes the monster knows that an armed and armored warrior is threatening, and for some (Orcs, Goblins, Wolves, Humans) this may even be true in the rules. But how does a monster know that: prior experience, academic learning, combat training? All of which could apply to fantastical elements as well.
You are making the same point I have made but in reverse. If enemies know that casters can cast polymorph, then they know that Champions can kill a hill giant in 12 seconds with a sword. So, if you know that, are you going to run past that guy to get to the caster? How do you know the guy in the frontline is a Champion? You don't, same way you don't know the guy in the robes is a 7th level wizard that can turn you into a frog. That's why I'm asking how these NPCs are informed when they develop these assumptions/tactics.

[Bovine Colonel]

This is why I am skeptical of the claim that I've just misunderstood the forum all along.

People have replied that the forum is only suggesting that to be the very best tank, you need to be able to contend with some creatures that will sometimes ignore you and move past you. Literally these words or words like them have never been uttered on this forum until now, in this thread, but this is the assertion in response to my claim in the OP.

Why would they need to be? This is the implicit understanding required to discuss not just tanks or character optimization, but D&D in general. This is a forum thread talking about the game, not the actual game. Nothing we talk about on this forum matters unless it somehow applies to an actual game, or imparts understanding that can be used in an actual game. Would you rather have the whole forum append "depending on the group and encounter" to every post on every topic? Because it really shouldn't need to be specified, regardless of whether anyone is talking about tanks.

"Make sure you have a way to prevent enemies from moving past you" is common-sense advice if you're a new player who wants to play your MMORPG tank in D&D. It won't always come up, but it really sucks to have a character meant to protect the party just end up being the last victim of a TPK because you went to a forum for advice and they gave you a bad answer.


The point is not about being encounter worthy or exactly how many Shields will the Mage expend or if they need to Misty Step, etc.

The point is that in seeking to understand what exactly monsters know about casters, I was told that they know they can turn them into frogs, they know that they can cast Disintegrate. The MM happens to have an NPC wizard smack dab in the middle of Polymorph and Disintegrate, the Mage. I asked if NPCs are also aware of the many ways casters can foil them (Shield, Misty Step, Greater Invisibility, Fly, etc), AND IF SO, would they still believe the tactic of rushing in at the caster is the best tactic. Notice in response to my simple example, we went from "the NPCs taking out the biggest threat" to "the NPCs draining the resources of the Caster" to "the orcs should just run away because the wizard is too strong" to "the orcs have sacrificed themselves to deplete the caster, TPK by 3rd encounter".

I literally mentioned all of this in my second post; that the wizard won't just be killed with a single attack, that the enemies are going to die. When I called it a kamikaze move, that was also questioned. Here we are, 5 pages later, and we're finally coming around to the idea that the orcs would be sacrificing themselves (spun to be exactly what the orcs intended all along, FOR THE HORDE!) and the wizard won't be dead. Or that if the orcs are somehow aware they are fighting a CR 9 Mage instead of a level 3 PC Wizard (how would they know that? who knows), they would run instead of attempt their tried and true rushing technique.

So when I ask "what are the NPCs thinking?" we have moved from "it's worth running past the swordsman because the wizard can kill us more easily" to "it's worth sacrificing my life to deplete the wizard's resources, for the good of my tribe". The NPCs have literally gone from self preservation to suicidal altruism all to keep the truism intact.

That said, it does answer my question. What are the NPCs thinking when they engage in these tactics? It depends on if they win or lose :smallamused:.

There's no such thing as "the NPCs". "The NPCs" is a generalization we use to talk collectively about the experiences of individual groups running their own games. It seems obvious to me that in most sessions at most tables the PCs are going to face level-appropriate combat encounters, and equally obvious that character optimization (which is the main context in which monster behavior is discussed) is only worth talking about when you assume level-appropriate or harder encounters. A disproportionately easy encounter is not worth discussing because it neither comes up often at most tables, nor poses a challenge or creates narrative tension when it does happen. It doesn't matter what a group of 5-6 orcs know or choose to do when confronted by a 9th-level party, because that's not a scenario that takes up a lot of time or player effort the few times it comes up at the table. The players aren't thinking "how do we stop these CR 1/2 melee enemies from killing a party member?", they're thinking "how do we punch through these mooks as fast as possible, using no resources, to get to the real fight?" or "look how strong we've gotten, we used to have trouble with orcs!"


If you think the truism is "it depends", then just stick with that. Don't try to argue the point every time because it won't make sense. That's the point of saying "it depends" lol.

When you ask a question about a broad topic like monster behavior, not everyone is just going to go "it depends" and leave it there. That would go against the whole point of a discussion forum. People are going to answer based on their experiences at their own tables. Which means if you tell them their answers are wrong they're going to take that as a criticism of the way they play.

And a lot of people in this thread have said "it depends" and/or answered from their own experiences. Other people seem to have accepted the implicit assumption in your question that there is such a thing as "the NPCs", but I don't think they can be faulted for the results of answering a question in the spirit in which it was asked.

[Veldrenor]

Notice in response to my simple example, we went from "the NPCs taking out the biggest threat" to "the NPCs draining the resources of the Caster" to "the orcs should just run away because the wizard is too strong" to "the orcs have sacrificed themselves to deplete the caster, TPK by 3rd encounter".

I literally mentioned all of this in my second post; that the wizard won't just be killed with a single attack, that the enemies are going to die. When I called it a kamikaze move, that was also questioned. Here we are, 5 pages later, and we're finally coming around to the idea that the orcs would be sacrificing themselves (spun to be exactly what the orcs intended all along, FOR THE HORDE!) and the wizard won't be dead. Or that if the orcs are somehow aware they are fighting a CR 9 Mage instead of a level 3 PC Wizard (how would they know that? who knows), they would run instead of attempt their tried and true rushing technique.


Note that those points were made by different people. We didn't go from "the NPCs taking out the biggest threat" to "the NPCs draining the resources of the Caster" to yada yada yada, we had several different people with different perspectives giving you different answers. Some people looked at your hypothetical and thought "yes, even if they know the caster's potential defensive abilities rushing the caster is still the best tactic." Some looked at it and thought "FOR THE HORDE, they'll TPK in 3 encounters!" Some looked at it and thought "run away!" Different DMs will run the same encounter differently and have their own respective monster metas, so a tank needs to be ready for any of them.



I literally mentioned all of this in my second post; that the wizard won't just be killed with a single attack, that the enemies are going to die.


If by "wizard" we mean "NPC Mage" and "single attack" we mean "one orc attacking the wizard once," then yeah, absolutely true. Even if that orc gets a max damage crit the Mage will be left with 13 HP. But if 4 orcs hit the Mage, even just average damage leaves the Mage at 4 HP and panicking. A bunch of orcs all charging the Mage absolutely can kill him in the first round. The odds aren't amazing; as I said, orcs have a total 30% chance to hit the CR9 Mage if he casts Shield, but their odds of survival are better if they drop the Mage first than if they engage the frontline and leave the Mage to his own devices (especially if they drop the Mage and then hold an axe to his throat and demand his allies stand down).

[Witty Username]

A careful speaker would word the truism entirely differently, because what you've just said there is "if you don't have a way to keep enemy attention, they will ignore you". This is precisely what is said on these forums all the time when discussing tanks, and it means exactly what it says. No one thinks to be careful because they are saying precisely what they mean.

Love the name BTW :smallamused:


I would agree that a careful speaker would probably sound very different from the truism, bloggers have whole careers on monster tactics so trying to condense a point about a party role to manipulate them into a sentence or two is pretty doomed for failure, especially since mental capacity is one of the changing variables.



So when I ask "what are the NPCs thinking?" we have moved from "it's worth running past the swordsman because the wizard can kill us more easily" to "it's worth sacrificing my life to deplete the wizard's resources, for the good of my tribe". The NPCs have literally gone from self preservation to suicidal altruism all to keep the truism intact.

At least my take on this is that their are three primary factors that could lead to a monster taking a dive tactic:
Priority target, some backline target is more dangerous then the frontline by a significant margin. This could be specific to the monster, like a scarecrow or Rakshasa could pretty reasonably prioritize enemies that strike at their vulnerabilities or more general like groups prioritizing enemies that are most likely to have area effects.
The reverse point, a frontline that is not concerning, High HP and/or AC could achieve this or powerful resistances, like a werewolf's immunity to non-silver weapons.
Soft target, monsters are more likely to attack enemies they believe they have a good chance to take down, this is more for high damage for level enemies like bugbears and assassins since PCs are pretty tough generally.

Now, as for how a monster determines these things, well observation can somewhat either basic like armor or size, or by extended spying if they are a stealthy type enemy. Training or drilling could as well, Hobgoblins would probably have dedicated learning on how to identify different kinds of combatants and their capabilities for example. For high level parties, reputation could become an issue, the Giants have heard of your famous fighter but also of your master archer and devastating Evoker.

I would say monsters should be aware of their own capacities (Scarecrows don't care much about swords, and Trolls hate acid), then broad strokes of other things like fighters and wizards, and then specialized based on their place in the game (The mage hunter Ironhand bugbears may know alot about wizards but less about paladins for example). If they are the thinking kind at all, Golems and Zombies need not apply.

[Tawmis]

After I replied a few times... I finally came to realize the below is the absolute truth.


Nothing we talk about on this forum matters unless it somehow applies to an actual game, or imparts understanding that can be used in an actual game.


In the end - does it even matter?
Everyone runs their games differently.
The same situation ran at two different tables, with different DMs and players - will turn out different.
I know this because I've DMed Lost Mines - and played in it - more times than I can count.
And each time it's been an entirely different experience.
Because of the DM, the players, the races and the classes all being played.

So this "discussion" of monster meta is literally just circling the drain - going back and forth.

[Pex]

After I replied a few times... I finally came to realize the below is the absolute truth.



In the end - does it even matter?
Everyone runs their games differently.
The same situation ran at two different tables, with different DMs and players - will turn out different.
I know this because I've DMed Lost Mines - and played in it - more times than I can count.
And each time it's been an entirely different experience.
Because of the DM, the players, the races and the classes all being played.

So this "discussion" of monster meta is literally just circling the drain - going back and forth.

It does in the sense that poor play for people new to the game influence future behavior. Everyone can be having fun, but when they meet people who play differently the clash of styles could mean a game doesn't happen or fall apart. It's not a tragedy of cosmic proportion, but it is a disappointment pertinent to the individual. We like to criticize people who criticize others for having "badwrongfun", but everyone has their deal breakers where they will double down on others having "badwrongfun" as bad for the game. The Forum can likely agree on the extremes of what's bad for the game. The debates happen when there's disagreement for issues that are not extreme.

Besides, what's the internet for if not to argue with others who are wrong on it?

[Segev]

Ultimately, the point isn't, "to be the very best tank," but rather, "if you want to not feel negated when monsters choose to simply avoid you to go for the squishies, you need a way to prevent them from avoiding you or otherwise getting to the squishies."

That isn't a 'truism.' That's just a fact.

Unless the OP is making the argument that all monsters should always choose to attack the obvious tank before going for anybody else, then the point the OP seems to be making about how not all monsters will ignore the tank is somewhat irrelevant to the advice on how to build a tank.

Not every pitch in baseball will be a curve ball; does this mean you don't advise batters to learn to hit curve balls?

Not every dish will have peanuts in it; does this mean you shouldn't advise somebody with a deadly peanut allergy to check and to keep an epipen on himself?

Not every match in Starcraft II will involve a cannon rush; does this mean that players of Starcraft II should not bother to learn to defend against cannon rushes?

[Witty Username]

I had a thought related to this topic, how much are monsters "aware" of dice rolls? For example, players I have found tend to switch tactics when they realize high rolls aren't getting there. Heck, it is something of a necessity if trying to use something like GWM or sharpshooter.

At least I tend to assume AC measuring (mapping the targets AC with what attacks hit and miss) is in play for intelligent enemies. This seams reasonable to me because I tend to run that rolls represent some context that is perceivable, like say bad rolls are when someone is trying to make back poor footing, or something.

This is pretty much a flavor of "I can't hurt the tank" style issue discussion.
Why does a monster commit to attacking an enemy that it either cannot hurt, or is very unlikely to hurt significantly?

[Azuresun]

I mean, spellbooks, spellcasting foci, holy symbols, instruments? These things are commonly visible. And that's without mentioning obvious magical effects that might have been cast beforehand, or the fact that even if the baddies don't know they're a caster, they will as soon as spells start getting cast.

Of course. I'm just expressing incredulity that every monster in the world has 100% infalliable Wizard Radar, and that everyone has their class and level tattooed on their forehead. They will also know that the monk with a book tucked under one arm is not a wizard, and that the pious fighter with a holy symbol on his shield is not a cleric. Also, nobody in the world considers a longsword to be a threatening weapon.

[Segev]

Of course. I'm just expressing incredulity that every monster in the world has 100% infallible Wizard Radar, and that everyone has their class and level tattooed on their forehead. They will also know that the monk with a book tucked under one arm is not a wizard, and that the pious fighter with a holy symbol on his shield is not a cleric. Also, nobody in the world considers a longsword to be a threatening weapon.

I do not think anybody has taken the position you find incredible.

If a party takes the kind of effort to obfuscate who is what role that you're describing, I would expect creatures to react accordingly if they're smart enough to be making these kinds of tactical choices in the first place.

Nobody is saying, "Tanks will always be avoided by every single monster in favor of going for the squishy." What's being said is, "If a tank cannot either force monsters to stop and face it, or do something that makes it more dangerous to ignore it and go after the squishy than it is to deal with the tank first, then there will be times that monsters are smart enough to ignore the tank in favor of the squishy."

Sometimes, simply existing in the path will be enough to get things to stop and attack you instead of other tactics. But that won't be every battle. Tanks who want to be as effective as possible will want to have as many ways to maximize the chances that the enemy will direct their attacks at the tank - or otherwise not be able to direct attacks past the tank to the party members the tank is protecting - as possible.

[strangebloke]

Of course. I'm just expressing incredulity that every monster in the world has 100% infalliable Wizard Radar, and that everyone has their class and level tattooed on their forehead. They will also know that the monk with a book tucked under one arm is not a wizard, and that the pious fighter with a holy symbol on his shield is not a cleric. Also, nobody in the world considers a longsword to be a threatening weapon.

I addressed this exact point in the part of the post you didn't quote.

And sometimes? This is bad strategy. Maybe the wizard is a bladesinger who's hanging back. Maybe the monk lost initiative and is thus 'hanging back' but still has 20 AC. Maybe they do target the barbarian because "she's wide open and unarmored! She's just one dwarf, surely I can take her down!"But its reasonable for monsters to use strategies that makes sense for them.
I just think its fair for enemies to make guesses based on the enemy's appearance.

[Tanarii]

Of course. I'm just expressing incredulity that every monster in the world has 100% infalliable Wizard Radar, and that everyone has their class and level tattooed on their forehead. They will also know that the monk with a book tucked under one arm is not a wizard, and that the pious fighter with a holy symbol on his shield is not a cleric.If they just cast a spell, everyone that saw it knows they are a spellcaster. Armor and exceptional defenses (ie high Dex or a Monk's AC) are generally also visible when used.


Also, nobody in the world considers a longsword to be a threatening weapon.To any given creature, a Longsword might not be a threatening weapon, especially compared to spellscasting. A commoner or kobold or goblin will view it as a deadly weapon. A guard or bandit (AC 12 & 11 hps) will see it as very dangerous, an Orc or hobgoblin as survivable for a few attacks due to HP or armor, a gnoll or bugbear is going to be a little dismissive at first, and an Ogre or Minotaur fairly dismissive. All of them will probably have a view of magic as a deadly threat, although campaign-specific mileage may vary.

[Dr.Samurai]

Why would they need to be? This is the implicit understanding required to discuss not just tanks or character optimization, but D&D in general. This is a forum thread talking about the game, not the actual game. Nothing we talk about on this forum matters unless it somehow applies to an actual game, or imparts understanding that can be used in an actual game. Would you rather have the whole forum append "depending on the group and encounter" to every post on every topic? Because it really shouldn't need to be specified, regardless of whether anyone is talking about tanks.
I don't think accuracy in language is a big ask and I'm not sure it needs to be justified.

"Make sure you have a way to prevent enemies from moving past you"
This is a very different sentence than saying or implying that monsters *will* ignore you if you haven't acquired some ability to stop them from doing so, that much should be obvious. So it proves the point that while you are giving me a hard time on why the forum should be precise it what it is saying, you go ahead and rephrase the truism so that it isn't implying something will be occurring all the time.

Also, it really begs the question of what exactly your sentence means.

For many frontline martial characters, does it mean that they have to take the Sentinel feat at first opportunity? Does it mean they should have a one-handed weapon just in case they need to grapple an enemy?

Or does it mean they need to be full blown spellcasters with Warcaster and Booming Blade, as in most of the examples you provided links to? No? They just need to multiclass out of their class or take Magic Initiate and Warcaster?

If I have a Reckless Attacking Barbarian with Great Weapon Master, I'm thinking to myself "I'm dealing a lot of damage and I'm granting Advantage to hit me". The Forum will say "you have a lot of HPs and resist the damage, and your offense is overshadowed by devastating control effects so... yeah, still not a worthy target".

... is common-sense advice if you're a new player who wants to play your MMORPG tank in D&D. It won't always come up, but it really sucks to have a character meant to protect the party just end up being the last victim of a TPK because you went to a forum for advice and they gave you a bad answer.

And the reverse is also true. DMs battered by this trusim everywhere they go thinking that the smart way to play monsters is to hyper-fixate on casters and obliterate the concept of a frontline.


There's no such thing as "the NPCs". "The NPCs" is a generalization we use to talk collectively about the experiences of individual groups running their own games.
This thread is literally about NPCs and how DMs inform the decisions they make, and I'm not interested in your redefining the term.


It seems obvious to me that in most sessions at most tables the PCs are going to face level-appropriate combat encounters, and equally obvious that character optimization (which is the main context in which monster behavior is discussed) is only worth talking about when you assume level-appropriate or harder encounters. A disproportionately easy encounter is not worth discussing because it neither comes up often at most tables, nor poses a challenge or creates narrative tension when it does happen. It doesn't matter what a group of 5-6 orcs know or choose to do when confronted by a 9th-level party, because that's not a scenario that takes up a lot of time or player effort the few times it comes up at the table. The players aren't thinking "how do we stop these CR 1/2 melee enemies from killing a party member?", they're thinking "how do we punch through these mooks as fast as possible, using no resources, to get to the real fight?" or "look how strong we've gotten, we used to have trouble with orcs!"
I'm not sure what was missed in my previous explanation but I will try again.

I'm not asking "what will orcs do against a CR 9 Mage". I'm asking "Why do orcs know a CR 9 Mage can Polymorph them, but they don't know that the Mage can tank their attacks with Shield?"

Because part of the information NPCs have is "frontline has armor and hit points, take longer to take down". But they would know that mages also have defensive spells and features that make them harder to take down as well.

When you ask a question about a broad topic like monster behavior, not everyone is just going to go "it depends" and leave it there. That would go against the whole point of a discussion forum. People are going to answer based on their experiences at their own tables. Which means if you tell them their answers are wrong they're going to take that as a criticism of the way they play.
Again though... I'm not the one prescribing "optimization" to others. I'm not the one suggesting that enemies will ignore your level 4 Champion because they took Toughness as their feat and are going sword and board and creating a "non-threatening turtle" character.

I'm not the one saying that monsters *will* know all the capabilities of your caster PCs, and *will* know that a longsword is less a threat, and *will* run past them, realism to the wind, because game mechanics would suggest that (if you inform your NPCs in a very specific way).

We didn't go from "the NPCs taking out the biggest threat" to "the NPCs draining the resources of the Caster" to yada yada yada, we had several different people with different perspectives giving you different answers. Some people looked at your hypothetical and thought "yes, even if they know the caster's potential defensive abilities rushing the caster is still the best tactic." Some looked at it and thought "FOR THE HORDE, they'll TPK in 3 encounters!" Some looked at it and thought "run away!" Different DMs will run the same encounter differently and have their own respective monster metas, so a tank needs to be ready for any of them.
The point is to demonstrate that maybe, just maybe, there might be better tactics than rushing through the frontline at the caster, and that monsters might know that if you assume monsters know caster spells. The point was not to inspire new explanations for why the tactic should be run. The latter smells like "this tactic is the one true tactic, and we will explain it after the fact depending on results".

I would agree that a careful speaker would probably sound very different from the truism, bloggers have whole careers on monster tactics so trying to condense a point about a party role to manipulate them into a sentence or two is pretty doomed for failure, especially since mental capacity is one of the changing variables.
I'm skeptical that it's that big of an ask or that I'm under a false impression because it's just too much to type it all out. Bovine Colonel did it above, Segev does it below.

It does in the sense that poor play for people new to the game influence future behavior. Everyone can be having fun, but when they meet people who play differently the clash of styles could mean a game doesn't happen or fall apart. It's not a tragedy of cosmic proportion, but it is a disappointment pertinent to the individual. We like to criticize people who criticize others for having "badwrongfun", but everyone has their deal breakers where they will double down on others having "badwrongfun" as bad for the game. The Forum can likely agree on the extremes of what's bad for the game. The debates happen when there's disagreement for issues that are not extreme.
Right.

We need to warn new players, meanwhile DMs might think that the big brain play in their combats is to ignore the frontline, because every tank thread in the history of TTRPGs tells you that they will be ignored if they can't aggro.

Besides, what's the internet for if not to argue with others who are wrong on it?
Indeed :smallcool::smallbiggrin:

Ultimately, the point isn't, "to be the very best tank," but rather, "if you want to not feel negated when monsters choose to simply avoid you to go for the squishies, you need a way to prevent them from avoiding you or otherwise getting to the squishies."

That isn't a 'truism.' That's just a fact.
It's also not the truism I see on this forum. Except here, in this thread, masquerading as the traditional forum advice.

Unless the OP is making the argument that all monsters should always choose to attack the obvious tank before going for anybody else, then the point the OP seems to be making about how not all monsters will ignore the tank is somewhat irrelevant to the advice on how to build a tank.
The advice has always been simple: you NEED some sort of mechanic TO PREVENT monsters from ignoring you, otherwise THEY WILL.

Not every pitch in baseball will be a curve ball; does this mean you don't advise batters to learn to hit curve balls?

Not every dish will have peanuts in it; does this mean you shouldn't advise somebody with a deadly peanut allergy to check and to keep an epipen on himself?

Not every match in Starcraft II will involve a cannon rush; does this mean that players of Starcraft II should not bother to learn to defend against cannon rushes?
Segev... you've read the thread (presumably). I keep conceding to the idea that I am mistaken about the forum truism, but then you post something like this, suggesting that I understand the truism to be "have a feature just in case" and am still arguing otherwise.

It's like, people say I'm mistaken, I say okay. They keep pushing the issue, I say well it should be worded more precisely. I get pushback that it DOESN'T have to be worded more precisely. Now it's being suggested that I don't understand the concept of planning for scenario.

This forum is a... special place... with special "debate" techniques...

Why does a monster commit to attacking an enemy that it either cannot hurt, or is very unlikely to hurt significantly?
Indeed, that's the question I've been asking since page 1. And why I think people don't really engage with "do enemies also know about defensive spells?". Because if you have already established enemies will not commit to attacking an opponent they are unlikely to hurt, then what do they do knowing that casters can foil their attacks?

I do not think anybody has taken the position you find incredible.
What do you take "enemies know what the PCs know" to mean?

Sometimes, simply existing in the path will be enough to get things to stop and attack you instead of other tactics. But that won't be every battle. Tanks who want to be as effective as possible will want to have as many ways to maximize the chances that the enemy will direct their attacks at the tank - or otherwise not be able to direct attacks past the tank to the party members the tank is protecting - as possible.
Well said, that should be a forum truism about tanking.

I just think its fair for enemies to make guesses based on the enemy's appearance.
I agree. It's more a matter of what they know/assume about people based on their appearances. If every enemy assumes the person that looks like a caster can Disintegrate them, well, yeah I can see a laser focus on the caster. I can also see taking cover and using ranged attacks as well.

To any given creature, a Longsword might not be a threatening weapon, especially compared to spellscasting. A commoner or kobold or goblin will view it as a deadly weapon. A guard or bandit (AC 12 & 11 hps) will see it as very dangerous, an Orc or hobgoblin as survivable for a few attacks due to HP or armor, a gnoll or bugbear is going to be a little dismissive at first, and an Ogre or Minotaur fairly dismissive. All of them will probably have a view of magic as a deadly threat, although campaign-specific mileage may vary.
Right. This is why I brought up the Veteran NPC and the Champion NPC and the Warlord NPC. Because if stories or experiences with casters is informing the legendary lethality of casters, shouldn't there also be stories and experiences informing the legendary lethality of martial NPCs as well? As I mentioned previously, an ogre doesn't stand a chance against a Champion. A minotaur will fall to a Warlord in 2 turns. Presumably, if these creatures have so much experience with casters that can cast higher level spells, they will have faced martial champions and warlords too right?

[Elder_Basilisk]

NPCs are an entirely different kettle of fish. If you start assuming that monsters and NPCs have experience with NPC/monster type abilities and should react as though PCs worked the same way as NPCs you break the entire D&D model since 4th edition wide open. "NPCs don't follow PC rules" only works if you pretend that they do when discussing what experiences and expectations NPCs have. Otherwise you need to play 3.x or Pathfinder or another edition where NPCs and PCs actually do follow the same rules.

Yes PC magic and abilities are different from NPCs. We just ignore that in order to play the 5th edition game.

[Witty Username]

Indeed, that's the question I've been asking since page 1. And why I think people don't really engage with "do enemies also know about defensive spells?". Because if you have already established enemies will not commit to attacking an opponent they are unlikely to hurt, then what do they do knowing that casters can foil their attacks?

So, you don't need to worry about monsters attacking non-tank casters because they are already better at defending themselves then tanks?
This is advice for tank builds, the advice assumes the build is better at defending itself then other characters, since it wouldn't be a tank build otherwise.

Take the orc example, a warrior with plate armor and a shield is going to be difficult to take down, if you bother with the math +5 atk vs AC 20. That is already about the same as a mage using shield and mage armor. So, one is actively doing a bunch of stuff to keep axes away from their face, the other has just got that much protection on. Also, we have deliberately ignored possibilities like the mage concentrating on a spell like sleep or web.

But this is the meat of the argument being discussed, being difficult to take down is a push factor, and tanks function by being difficult to take down, build that have a pull factor are more effective because it prevents enemies from playing around your defenses.

Take a cleric tank vs a fighter tank. both are better at defending themselves than a rogue or wizard (multi classing on the back burner for the moment). but a cleric casting spirit guardians is a vortex of nonsense that does damage, messes with movement, and can be broken by attacking the cleric. So a cleric is better at performing a tank role in a party while spirit guardians is up because it is big, scary, and makes the cleric a target. Even if the fighter is better at personally surviving.

[Bovine Colonel]

I don't think accuracy in language is a big ask and I'm not sure it needs to be justified.
I suppose it isn't, but inaccurate language is an honored tradition as old as written communication.


This is a very different sentence than saying or implying that monsters *will* ignore you if you haven't acquired some ability to stop them from doing so, that much should be obvious. So it proves the point that while you are giving me a hard time on why the forum should be precise it what it is saying, you go ahead and rephrase the truism so that it isn't implying something will be occurring all the time.

Also, it really begs the question of what exactly your sentence means.

For many frontline martial characters, does it mean that they have to take the Sentinel feat at first opportunity? Does it mean they should have a one-handed weapon just in case they need to grapple an enemy?

Or does it mean they need to be full blown spellcasters with Warcaster and Booming Blade, as in most of the examples you provided links to? No? They just need to multiclass out of their class or take Magic Initiate and Warcaster?

If I have a Reckless Attacking Barbarian with Great Weapon Master, I'm thinking to myself "I'm dealing a lot of damage and I'm granting Advantage to hit me". The Forum will say "you have a lot of HPs and resist the damage, and your offense is overshadowed by devastating control effects so... yeah, still not a worthy target".

I agree that a Reckless GWM Barbarian or a Sentinel...anything is a perfectly fine tank at a lot of tables. Most DMs will tailor their encounters, both in terms of stats and behavior, to the optimization level of the group because that's what a "balanced" encounter entails. If you want to play a tank at a low-to-medium optimization game you're streaming on Twitch, let's say, you might go for a Sentinel monk (https://criticalrole.fandom.com/wiki/Beauregard_Lionett). Depending on the encounter you might decide to Stunning Strike as many enemies as possible every turn, or use Patient Defense and Deflect Missiles to hold a choke point against half an encounter while the rest of the party mops up the other half.

Obviously none of that means the forum should stop advising players who want to build tanks to make use of tricks like War Caster/Booming Blade or Sentinel/Polearm Master. The forum has no way of gauging the optimization level of the group; it can only offer generalized advice.

Ludic's builds are highly optimized; they're designed to be played in challenging games where a "normal" tank won't cut it. I brought them up just to show that a highly-optimized tank doesn't just assume monsters will disengage from them to go after the backline; the build also has ways to fight from a distance.


And the reverse is also true. DMs battered by this trusim everywhere they go thinking that the smart way to play monsters is to hyper-fixate on casters and obliterate the concept of a frontline.


This thread is literally about NPCs and how DMs inform the decisions they make, and I'm not interested in your redefining the term.

Are...are there really DMs that are confused by this? If you want intelligent monster behavior the surest way, both narrativist and simulationist, is to figure out what the monsters want. The DM, just by virtue of running the game, has access to far more information about the monsters' goals and knowledge than any forum poster does. If the DM isn't willing to put in the bare-minimum effort necessary to use that information to define the monsters' tactics, I'm perfectly comfortable ignoring their game when discussing what the monsters know just like I ignore games where the DM suicide-runs the monsters into the party tank. The monsters in those games don't act on knowledge, they just act according to the whims of the DM. If the question is "how should the monsters behave if the DM is specifically trying to kill the party within a certain XP budget" I'm sure the DM can figure that out after a few encounters without the forum's assistance.

If a DM takes character optimization assumptions as ironclad rules governing monster behavior, and then applies those assumptions-as-rules to the detriment of the table, they should improve both their DMing skills and their reading comprehension.

And if you're concerned about new DMs looking for advice on how best to run their monsters, there's plenty (https://theangrygm.com/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/) of (https://www.themonstersknow.com/) advice (https://youtu.be/FUrlRZu2uCc?t=459) out (https://arcaneeye.com/dm-tools-5e/5e-encounter-building/#6_Switch_Up_the_Objective) there (https://www.writingbeginner.com/how-to-write-a-dd-encounter/) telling them to figure out what the monsters want. Any DM who wants to run "smart" monsters is going to look for these resources rather than passively absorbing forum assumptions about character optimization. A lot of the time it's pretty intuitive, too: if the encounter is an outmatched patrol in the dark lord's castle then obviously the guards are going to take some situation-appropriate action that involves summoning more guards and making use of the castle's defenses, unless the DM decides they'd rather just run. At my table they'd probably sound the alarm and hold out for reinforcements. No DM who thinks at all about what the monsters know or want is going to have the guards rush the caster instead just because some forum post said so. What are we going to do, accuse them of roleplaying their NPCs incorrectly because they didn't do what "the NPCs" are supposed to do?

(If by any chance a new DM has somehow wandered this deep into the thread, I highly recommend the Angry GM article.)


I'm not asking "what will orcs do against a CR 9 Mage". I'm asking "Why do orcs know a CR 9 Mage can Polymorph them, but they don't know that the Mage can tank their attacks with Shield?"

The White Fang tribe has fought mages in the past, but their oral histories of the event are pretty thin on details. They do have their own spellcasting shamans, though, so they have some idea of how spell slots work. If they hear from panicked scout reports that the party coming to wipe them out seems to be invincible, that they have limitless healing and that that the mage in particular showed a shocking willingness to burn through spell slots for both offense and defense, the tribe would probably evacuate all the noncombatants and prepare the stronghold for a final stand. They'd start the final battle by springing an ambush on the mage; if that fails, then hopefully by now they at least have an idea of who the most vulnerable party member is so they can focus attacks on that target. Once a party member is down they can try to end the combat with a hostage negotiation; if that doesn't work, at least they've removed an enemy combatant as quickly as possible.

The Savossan Empire is founded on the idea that knowledge, specifically the study and practical application of arcane magic, is what separates those who lead from those who serve. The surrounding countries aren't ruled exclusively by wizards, so they're considered barbarians who will one day serve the Empire. Being a soldier in the empire's legions is seen as a position of high honor, and has the benefits associated with that honor, so most graduates of the Imperial Academy choose to join the army as officers unless they're in a position to inherit a governorship or a large fortune. Thus, almost all of the centurions and many of the squad-leaders in a Savossan legion are able to cast arcane magic from a spellbook. The first time the PCs fight a Savossan scouting party, any survivors who return to the fortified camp will be able to tell their commanding officers how many spells the PCs cast during the encounter and what those spells were used for. Eventually, if the PCs prove to be a persistent obstacle, the commander will send a strike team of wizards with specifically-tailored spell lists to try to kill the PCs.

This is what I mean when I say there's no such thing as "the NPCs". There is only the specific encounter, in the specific scenario, at the specific table. Everything else is just talk. The DM at the table knows far better than any forum poster what their monsters know and, consequently, how they should behave. Forum discussions about monster behavior are ultimately either about generating ideas for the DM, who is free to use or not use those ideas, or they're really about character optimization.

[Segev]

Well said, that should be a forum truism about tanking.

That's the thing...I thought it was. I have not seen the truism you're saying is this forum's unified voiced truth. I only have seen people recommending that those who build tanks consider means of stopping enemies from getting around them.

That is not the same thing as saying "all enemies will ignore you."

Please be aware that, "Enemies will ignore you," is not the same sentence as, "All enemies will ignore you." I have seen the former reasonably frequently around here, in some form or another. I have not seen the latter, in any form, outside of this thread when this thread alleges that that is the "truism of this forum."

Am I misunderstanding what you're alleging this forum's truism is?

[Kane0]

I feel like this thread might be helpful

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?644533

[Tawmis]

I'm not asking "what will orcs do against a CR 9 Mage". I'm asking "Why do orcs know a CR 9 Mage can Polymorph them, but they don't know that the Mage can tank their attacks with Shield?"


Why are CR 1 monsters attacking a CR 9 Mage, is what I'd ask. :)

It'd make more sense for a young blue dragon (https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/monsters/young_blue_dragon/) to be attacking a CR 9 wizard.

Which, I think it would since most "tanks" are melee (except for Rangers and other archer types) - so the Wizard poses the larger threat being able to throw spells at it.

[Segev]

Why are CR 1 monsters attacking a CR 9 Mage, is what I'd ask. :)

It'd make more sense for a young blue dragon (https://5thsrd.org/gamemaster_rules/monsters/young_blue_dragon/) to be attacking a CR 9 wizard.

Which, I think it would since most "tanks" are melee (except for Rangers and other archer types) - so the Wizard poses the larger threat being able to throw spells at it.

5e is designed with the idea that CR 1 orcs remain relevant at every level.

[Tawmis]

5e is designed with the idea that CR 1 orcs remain relevant at every level.

True. But unless you're equiping the orcs with magic items, armor, and a lot more health - when you think Orc vs CR 9 mage without going into details about what the orc has... it seems like a silly question. Which is why I opted going for an actual CR 9 creature.

[Segev]

True. But unless you're equiping the orcs with magic items, armor, and a lot more health - when you think Orc vs CR 9 mage without going into details about what the orc has... it seems like a silly question. Which is why I opted going for an actual CR 9 creature.

I actually think "lots of orcs vs. CR 9 mage," myself. Possibly backing up a CR 5-12 monster or few.

[Mellack]

I believe to make a medium CR 9 encounter would require 15 orcs. At that number, doesn't that make the idea of a front line moot? You can send 5-6 against the mage and still have plenty to keep the front liners busy.

[Segev]

I believe to make a medium CR 9 encounter would require 15 orcs. At that number, doesn't that make the idea of a front line moot? You can send 5-6 against the mage and still have plenty to keep the front liners busy.

Depends how the front line is built. Crusher or Slasher feat can shove or slow those trying to get by. Sentinel feat can stop one target per front liner in their tracks. Mounts can let the front line be out further ahead of the mage and still get back to help, and it also makes them take up more space, creating obstacles that either block choke points or that must be navigated around, slowing advance.