Choosing which PC to attack as DM [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Unoriginal

2023-06-15, 03:35 PM

I see a lot of comments in various threads suggesting that monsters/NPCs will not choose to attack a PC that is obviously harder to hit.
While I see that this argument has some merit, I would counter that generally speaking the monsters will attack the closest, or most immediately threatening characters first regardless of AC. And in the swirl of melee it'll be as much down to random chance as any deliberate tactic, especially as Int gets lower.

So how do you, as DMs, select targets to attack?
I'll often just randomise amongst available targets unless something more obvious has already presented as part of the scene.
I do give intelligent monsters the ability to make good tactical decisions, but not at the expense of them having a very real desire to fend off the angry dude in plate mail waving a massive axe in their face.

As Xervous said, the choice of target depends on who is making the selection, just like all choices in combat.

Some beings will prioritize the hardest-to-hit target. Goblin archers lead by a Bugbear into ambushing a group of pilgrims would likely all aim at the knight in plate armor until the knight is dead, then pick on the less protected and less well-armed travelers. Since their goals include surviving the encounter and they won't benefot from killing the more fragile targets then endure the attacks of a pissed off knight.

Some beings will prioritize the easiest-to-hit target first. A knight who notices a group of goblin archers ready to ambush the people they're protecting would likely want to kill as many archers as possible before they can makes arrows rain, even if the Bugbear leading them will be the bigger individual challenge to defeat.

Other beings have other priorities, like a swordmaster cultist who hates Paladins focusing on the Paladin even if objectively speaking stopping the Rogue who's stabbing the cult's high priest would be better for the cult's and the cultist's long term goals.

False God

2023-06-15, 03:52 PM

Depends on the creature. Is it intelligent? Tactical? Powerful? Can it understand the creature it's attacking isn't the one dealing damage to it, or is the biggest threat to it?

Unless the party gives me good details on their appearance, I assume a sort of "generic adventurer" look, so monsters will typically attack whoever is in front, unless they are given reason to attack someone in the rear first. If the party has very distinct looks and the enemies are smart, they may recognize the mage from their hat, the priest by their robes and target them first, ignoring or kiting melee party members.

Some intelligent enemy groups will have a commander, whose job is less to engage and more to direct their forces at the correct target.

Pack animals will focus fire.

da newt

2023-06-15, 04:55 PM

100% depends on the attacker and what they can observe. Clever folks/tacticians will fight clever, brutes will brute, survivors will do their best to survive, mindless foes will try to eat the nearest food, etc ...

As a DM, I do my best to be fair and play the badguys as they should react 'normally' but when I'm conflicted I'll let the dice decide (I'll roll a d6 after stating 1 or 2 = Bob, 3 or 4 = Fred, 5 or 6 = Alcazam the wizard in the rear).

5eNeedsDarksun

2023-06-15, 05:20 PM

Theodoxus

2023-06-15, 05:41 PM

I just pick on whichever player has annoyed me the most that session.

NGL, I'm horrible at group tactics. I should not run combat. I'm a dream builder and can craft some fun non-combat encounters, in-depth world building, and even potentially interesting combat scenarios. I just can't run them. My combats are flat, my monsters never fully engage with interesting abilities... I legit hate running fights. And my poor players pay the price "It's been 3 weeks since we fought anything - can we go stab a shopkeeper or something?"

It's not that they aren't getting XP or advancing their characters... it's just sometimes you want a little Diablo in your TTRPG, and ugh, I'm horrible at it.

If I had more than 3 players, I'd ask to co-DM instead. I'd build the world and scenarios, and then play a DM-PC in fights while my co-DM ran the combat... one can dream.

schm0

2023-06-15, 06:05 PM

So how do you, as DMs, select targets to attack?

I don't select any targets. My NPCs do. I put myself in their heads.

If it's a beast, say, a wolf... if they are attacking the party, they are either mad, starving, or acting on someone else's behest. If mad, the target will be the nearest. If starving, it will be the one the creature deems the weakest (likely the smallest, sickliest or frailest-looking.) They will retreat and attempt to drag off their victim. If acting on someone else's behest, they may have tactics or target an individual en masse. They may not retreat at all.

If it's an intelligent creature, say, a mage. They will be smart about their tactics, avoiding direct conflict at all cost, debilitating the strongest member, perhaps even focusing fire on the casters, creating barriers, and so on. Retreat is likely as soon as they feel they are outmatched, unless they are zealots, in which case they fight to the death.

It's entirely contextual and I think about this kind of approach for every single encounter.

LibraryOgre

2023-06-15, 06:07 PM

I just pick on whichever player has annoyed me the most that session.

This, right here, is the best strategy. :smallbiggrin:

I tend towards "who is going to be most convenient" for non-sophont creatures. A predator will go towards the smallest, or whoever is furthest from aid.

Tawmis

2023-06-15, 06:22 PM

I see a lot of comments in various threads suggesting that monsters/NPCs will not choose to attack a PC that is obviously harder to hit.
While I see that this argument has some merit, I would counter that generally speaking the monsters will attack the closest, or most immediately threatening characters first regardless of AC. And in the swirl of melee it'll be as much down to random chance as any deliberate tactic, especially as Int gets lower.
So how do you, as DMs, select targets to attack? I'll often just randomise amongst available targets unless something more obvious has already presented as part of the scene. I do give intelligent monsters the ability to make good tactical decisions, but not at the expense of them having a very real desire to fend off the angry dude in plate mail waving a massive axe in their face.

If a player character rushes up to a monster; the monster, in my own games, typically defends itself (and attacks back, despite armor class). Because knowing a character is "harder to hit" is, in a roundabout way of "meta-gaming" on the DM's behalf. Because a roll fails to meet or exceed the AC is not an indication of a "miss" - but rather an indication of damaging the target. You can still "hit" (in my games) with a miss, and I will flavor it as, "You lunge forward, your sword clashing against your opponent's chainmail." So it's still "hitting" just not damaging. The only real time I ever consider it a "miss" is a Critical Fail. And usually flavor that as fun - throwing your weapon, hitting a friendly person near you for half the damage you rolled, etc.

If the enemies go first - I usually assign a number to each person and have the enemy (enemies) roll to see who they wish to attack.

Now that said, if an enemy is intelligent - and sees someone cast a healing spell - they may disengage and go after the healer knowing the healer can keep their targets up.

Very intelligent creatures (I use Driders as an example) will wait on the ceiling, lure a few away with some Driders on the ground - then those on the ceiling drop on the back people (casters or range people), drop faerie fire (hope it lands) and wreak havoc.

kazaryu

2023-06-16, 12:16 AM

i mean, it depends on who the players are. i have a group of new players, so i don't bend over backwards about tactics most of the times, certainly not the god tactic, focus fire. because i know that if i tried to go head to head against my players...i'd win, every time. But that isn't fun. rather i focus on making intelligent enemies *feel* intelligent. for example casting silence on the sorcerer even though i know he has subtle metamagic so it won't prevent his casting. OTOH if casting silence on the sorcerer would actually shut him down...so like were he in a position that he could actually leave the area of the silence, then I wouldn't do it, i'd look for other ways to project their tactics. for example, the current plot involves them going after a group of bandits in the woods that have been kidnapping people my players have encountered them twice, and both times the bandits initiated combat by dropping a full radius plant growth spell on the party, meanwhile the bandits themselves came prepared with magic that allows them to ignore the reduced speed. allowing for a ton of tactical flexibility. for example, part of the bandit ambush parties stay hidden until enemies (in the case, the PC's) start to fall. at which point they stabilive the PC' and drag them deeper into the brush, making it harder for the party to rescue them. or if the fight isn't going their way, it allows the bandits to run while leaving the party relatively unable to keep up. overall the encounters end up being designed in such a way that its still generally fair for the PC's (as long as they don't get surprised) but part of the design includes elements that hint at tactics.

That said, i agree with you that a lot of people do get hung up on things like 'why would they focus on the guy they can't hit'. my philosophy with roleplay follows 2 rules:
1. no character trait is absolute. smart people do dumb things. tough people do soft things. arrogant people will sometimes respond empathically.
2. its not about 'what my character would do' its about 'what can i justify my character doing' and 'how can i justify this behavior'

many roleplay decisions (including on who to strike) i see as a potential opportunity to add a new layer. That calm, cool, highly intelligent person that seems to always be in control might absolutely collapse literally as soon as they hit a scenario they didn't plan for. The raging hulk type big bad may pause when they here a plea for mercy, and leave a PC alive. because in that one moment the PC reminded them of their daughters death that initially ignited their rage. the smart thing might be for the rogue to gof or the caster...but man imagine telling your friends later how you managed to sneak a blade straight through the eye slot of that other guys helemt. And its not even about justifying the behavior in that moment. sometimes i'll do something that i think is cool, and then need to backend a justification. So long as you leave your players with a sense of curiosity about it, it should be fine. in short: out of character behavior is just...in character behavior that belies a dimension you haven't seen of that character yet.

so...my advice to you: do what makes the most sense to you in the moment, don't worry as much about the 'why' thats a question you can ask yourself later, especially if its significant. but you're talking about people trying to make split second decisions in the heat of battle, presumably with their lives on the line, likely with an imperfect understanding of the battlefield. You really shouldn't need to justify your decisions beyond that.

Damon_Tor

2023-06-16, 12:43 AM

I had an illusionist wizard who would use Disguise Self to make himself look like he was wearing plate mail. This worked fine for a round or two, which was usually enough.

My plan was always to get to 14th level, then someone would be like "hey, this armor isn't real, geek the mage!" and then I would use Tenser's Transformation followed by Illusory Reality to immediately make the armor real (and give me proficiency with it) but sadly the campaign never got that far.

SociopathFriend

2023-06-16, 01:19 AM

When it doubt- roll it out.

KillingTime

2023-06-16, 01:44 AM

I think I take a very similar line go many of you.
It's a mix of tactics ("get the dangerous caster!), necessity (fight back against the one attacking me), and random.

If I used the method of attacking the most annoying PC I still wouldn't know who to attack...

Unoriginal

2023-06-16, 02:42 AM

DruidAlanon

2023-06-16, 03:45 AM

I just pick on whichever player has annoyed me the most that session.

My DM used to do it in a game I had to quit recently. He was a mediocre player at best that couldn't handle my sorlock. No matter who attacked us and where I was in the battlefield, he'd always target me, leaving our paladin unscrached.

It kinda feels unfair if it's not justified by what happens in-game but it is what it is.

Mastikator

2023-06-16, 04:21 AM

When I DM I choose based on the NPC that is attacking them.

An ogre will charge headfirst and attack whoever is closest, if he has options he chooses the biggest.
Hobgoblins will try to control the battlefield and lure the players. Goblins will sneak around and take potshots behind cover.
A wizard will target the wizard because they the smartest and therefore in charge and also the most dangerous :smallwink:.
A mindflayer will target the biggest, dumbest, easiest to-turn-thrall and use them against the smartest, frailest, enemy.
A dragon will try to split the party with breath weapon, doing fly-by attacks over and over and only after it has spied on the party and knows their strengths and weaknesses, once the party is split it will grapple one and fly away only to drop them from a lethal altitude.
Zombies and skeletons attack whoever they can, I roll for it if it has options.
Kobolds will fight defensively, try to trick the players into running into their traps and murder-corridors while the other kobolds secure the treasure, the young and then flee.
A basilisk is as fearless as a honeybadger and employs the same strategy.
Phase spiders gang up on whoever isn't paralysed yet.
A rakshasa won't fight them unless backed into a corner, and then will instead try to inflict as much lasting damage as possible.
A banshee should attack whoever seems happiest.
A vampire won't just attack them directly, but rather spy on them and charm one that is alone and then turn them into a spawn.

Unoriginal

2023-06-16, 05:35 AM

Two key factors to consider, as well:

1. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth

Enemies should react to the situation as it unfold, and it's not entirely a rational thing. Most mages who get Reckless Attacked by a guywith a greatsword will likely start thinking of all the ways they could deal with that, even if a different adventurer was a priority moments before. Some mages will endure and keep their objective on track, others will panic and create distance with a spell even if there are more efficient means to deal with that issue, etc.

2. Everyone has a punch until they get mouthed at in the plan

Or in other words: don't neglect the way the one making the decision perceives and feels about the target at the moment of the decision.
In one of my campaigns, a powerful Demon spent a few Actions targetting the Artificier who had pissed them off the most just before, rather than focusing on the NPC who they needed subdued or killed to continue their project without risk.

All in all, combat is an occasion, and oftentime the only occasion, to roleplay the antagonists and showcase their personalities, histories and thought processes, even if it's not directly stated as such or just subtle.

Sigreid

2023-06-16, 07:30 AM

Mastikator

2023-06-16, 07:32 AM

I'll add to these that if the party is doing that thing where a character goes down and the healer pops them back up over and over, after the first time the opponents will spend an attack on a downed foe to put a stop to that.

Make sure he yells the iconic "WHY! WON'T! YOU! DIE!" if it happens more than once. :smallbiggrin:

Unoriginal

2023-06-16, 07:38 AM

Some enemies will attack downed people regardless, too.

Some will do that even if there are other targets available, others will do it only if it's that or wasting a turn doing nothing.

JackPhoenix

2023-06-16, 08:24 AM

Worth noting that unless the NPC is just trying to escape (or trying to escape while taking a PC with them), the fact they will have to deal with the high-AC target sooner or later will factor in the NPC's tactical analysis.

It's not like the Fighter disappears once you kill the Bard (if the Fighter does disappear once you kill the Bard, shenanigans were afoot).

On the other hand, beating the bard unconscious and telling the fighter they'll finish him off unless he surrenders is a valid approach for dealing with the fighter.

Atranen

2023-06-16, 08:49 AM

I try not to randomize, because I've always done it by rolling a die, and it takes extra time to roll and adjudicate that. If at all possible, I'll use the context of the scenario to make a reasonable choice.

If it's something that's really random, then I do roll, because otherwise there's a distinct possibility that I'm inadvertently not treating the players fairly.

If I'm running an AL game with new players, I'll focus fire on the experienced ones.

Psyren

2023-06-16, 09:32 AM

I try to roleplay the creature in question. If I'm ever not sure what they'd do or I've narrowed it down to a smaller subset of equal possibilities - well, I have these wonderful objects called dice that can help me decide :smallbiggrin:

When it doubt- roll it out.

^Yeah, that (though again, that comes secondarily to roleplay.)

This, right here, is the best strategy. :smallbiggrin:

I tend towards "who is going to be most convenient" for non-sophont creatures. A predator will go towards the smallest, or whoever is furthest from aid.

I learned a new word today so thanks for that!

LibraryOgre

2023-06-16, 09:41 AM

I learned a new word today so thanks for that!

Every time you use "sentient", someone comes in to argue the definition of sentience, despite its common usage. "Sophont" avoids that.

Hytheter

2023-06-16, 09:45 AM

I just pick the player I like the least and relentlessly target them until they leave the table. Works a charm!

PallyBass

2023-06-16, 09:49 AM

I see a lot of comments in various threads suggesting that monsters/NPCs will not choose to attack a PC that is obviously harder to hit.
While I see that this argument has some merit, I would counter that generally speaking the monsters will attack the closest, or most immediately threatening characters first regardless of AC. And in the swirl of melee it'll be as much down to random chance as any deliberate tactic, especially as Int gets lower.

So how do you, as DMs, select targets to attack?
I'll often just randomise amongst available targets unless something more obvious has already presented as part of the scene.
I do give intelligent monsters the ability to make good tactical decisions, but not at the expense of them having a very real desire to fend off the angry dude in plate mail waving a massive axe in their face.

When I am in a rush or dealing with a massive combat I usually delegate it as a combination of "whoever is closest or whoever dealt the most damage to it"

When I have more time I try to roleplay how the Monster/NPC will react. A cultist is fanatically loyal and will attack whoever they are told to by their superior, even if it means running past someone tankier. On their own however they blindly attack the nearest enemy until death. A wild monster/animal attacks the closest, unless they are intelligent/ have lore to target a specific target ( i.e. rust monster will ignore a mage to eat the knights armor). A vampire spawn tries to drain blood from the nearest target while dragging its prey away- being more animalistic. a full Vampire has the intelligence and will to decide when to feed and when to fight, disengage, hide, change targets, negotiate, etc.

I think it addds a nice variety; that dumb mosters are more predictable while smart enemies are cunning and thus open to more tactics. It also makes the intelligent enemies much more interesting in combat- going beyond "move to nearest target and attack"

That said I found that most Players I have played with dislike fighting organized, highly intelligent enemies. That doesn't mean it's a bad way to play- just know your audience (will they enjoy the challenge, variety, and increased deadlyness of combat?) and when to apply this type of coordinated attacks for the monsters (Liches, old Vampire, Ancient Dragon, professional Army, etc.)
Oh and sidenote- no PC I have met so far likes to be attacked when they are already down, regardless of the reason but again know your audience.

Unoriginal

2023-06-16, 10:08 AM

On the other hand, beating the bard unconscious and telling the fighter they'll finish him off unless he surrenders is a valid approach for dealing with the fighter.

It works enough times for people to try it, yeah.

If it doesn't work it tends to really not work, though

Oh and sidenote- no PC I have met so far likes to be attacked when they are already down, regardless of the reason but again know your audience.

I mean, I don't like when my PC gets to half-HP due to walking on a trap either, but I'd be even more disappointed if the group walked into a kobold lair and there were no traps we had to be careful about.

Stuff you dislike can sometime enhance the experience, provided the payoff is worth it. Ex: triumphing over an enemy you hate because they attacked a downed PC.

Knowing your audience is very important still, though, I agree.

da newt

2023-06-16, 10:44 AM

Along with my previous response - I'll also ensure I don't single any one PC out repeatedly UNLESS there is a really good in story reason. I'll spread is around so one combat the front line gets all the attention, but then the next encounter focus fire the casters, then run a kite scenario ... variety tends to create 'fairness' and gives everyone a chance to shine and feel vulnerable.

Oramac

2023-06-16, 11:47 AM

I pick the target that the creature would pick. Assassins geek the mages. OGRE FIGHT BIG MAN. The crocodile just wants a meal.

As a DM, I do my best to be fair and play the badguys as they should react 'normally' but when I'm conflicted I'll let the dice decide (I'll roll a d6 after stating 1 or 2 = Bob, 3 or 4 = Fred, 5 or 6 = Alcazam the wizard in the rear).

Both of these.

Also, sometimes it's as simple as "Player X pissed off NPC Y the most, so he gets the NPC's ire regardless of tactics". I have one player who loves to talk, and often trash talks in character, so obviously he sometimes gets ganged up on by the NPCs.

Psyren

2023-06-16, 12:54 PM

Every time you use "sentient", someone comes in to argue the definition of sentience, despite its common usage. "Sophont" avoids that.

I used "sapient" to avoid that, but I agree that "sophont" is even more precise as it more explicitly uses humanity as the benchmark.

That said I found that most Players I have played with dislike fighting organized, highly intelligent enemies. That doesn't mean it's a bad way to play- just know your audience (will they enjoy the challenge, variety, and increased deadlyness of combat?) and when to apply this type of coordinated attacks for the monsters (Liches, old Vampire, Ancient Dragon, professional Army, etc.)
Oh and sidenote- no PC I have met so far likes to be attacked when they are already down, regardless of the reason but again know your audience.

I think variety is good here. Part of the DM's job is to create memorable and engaging challenges. Sometimes that means playing into the party's expectations so they can show off their tactical prowess, and sometimes that means subverting those expectations so they're caught on the backfoot and need to adapt. Both are healthy in moderation.

5eNeedsDarksun

2023-06-16, 02:56 PM

One rule of thumb I use at mid levels for intelligent combatants is to NOT attack anything that looks like a big ape or T-rex if there are any other possible options; same goes for 8/4 * whatever. Polymorph and Conjure X just seem like popular enough spells that it would be fairly common knowledge that hitting anything else is likely a better option.

Unoriginal

2023-06-16, 03:35 PM

Ionathus

2023-06-16, 03:36 PM

For me it's a mix of instinct, ego, and tactics. I balance those three depending on what the attacking creature prioritizes.

I also try to let my PCs swing the fight if they consider it. If my paladin wants to draw aggro he's got Compelled Duel, but I'll also let him taunt and make an ability check to try and divert attention.

Most humanoids will recognize if a caster is Concentrating on a very obvious effect and may try to target them and break concentration. Enemy wizards or enemies schooled in Arcana will be more discerning, realizing which spells CAN be broken and which ones aren't worth disrupting. The smartest enemies may take full advantage of this: trying to trigger Haste's lost turn when the spell ends, for instance.

5eNeedsDarksun

2023-06-16, 03:45 PM

Depends if the caster is included among the Polymorphed people.

If so hitting them can break Concentration.

True. Unless the intelligent enemies see the spell being cast I go with my original assumption. Between the crappy AC and mediocre Con saves of polymorphed critters it'd usually be bad tactics to go this route.

Oramac

2023-06-16, 04:15 PM

For me it's...ego.

Good point!! I've definitely done this as well. The hyper-narcissistic lich attacks/ignores the other wizards depending on prior interactions, (almost) regardless of tactical consideration.

Sigreid

2023-06-16, 05:38 PM

Oh and sidenote- no PC I have met so far likes to be attacked when they are already down, regardless of the reason but again know your audience.

They're not really expected to like it, but if the party is going to result to healing word wack a mole tactics, Rule number 2 comes online.

animorte

2023-06-16, 06:49 PM

I've worked in several haunted houses. Those with more funding provide lessons on figuring out who (and how) to scare. Those easiest to scare generally make themselves the most obvious targets. Do that. Focus on the people that seem most afraid to get hit.

Of course, if they're optimized, then it's likely a caster with reaction, bonus action, and action options to negate your efforts. :smalltongue:

mormon_soldier

2023-06-16, 08:53 PM

Unoriginal

2023-06-17, 03:30 AM

The Monsters Know What They are Doing is an interesting blog that does a tactics analysis of what a huge creature is likely to do in the combat. He also talks about who and what they are likely to target.

https://www.themonstersknow.com/

The blog is definitively interesting, but I have to point out the writer has some pretty unusual interpretations and expectations, and that definitively colors their analysis.

In particular, they seem to view lower-than-10-INT as far less smart than what the game rules and the lore state. For example, I remember them saying that an 8 INT humanoid would barely manage to craft a Glaive by sticking a sword on a pole.

So yeah, absolutely worth a read, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

Catullus64

2023-06-17, 09:01 AM

I'm typically in the camp of having monsters attack the PC that it makes the most tactical sense for that monster to attack... with one huge qualifier. The monsters are operating on much more limited information than you, the DM, are.

You, the DM, have numerical & narrative information that makes tactical decision-making very easy, especially PC Hit Points and knowledge of how spells and concentration work. Think very carefully about how much of that info is visible or otherwise observable to the creatures you control. Things like AC and HP may not be observable at all, being as they are very abstract measures of 'how hard are you to hit' and 'how close are you to dying.'

LibraryOgre

2023-06-17, 09:02 AM

da newt

2023-06-17, 09:07 AM

"I remember them saying that an 8 INT humanoid would barely manage to craft a Glaive by sticking a sword on a pole." - I remember a very involved thread here with many folks vehemently arguing you could not craft a Glaive by sticking a sword or dagger on a long shaft (can you craft a magical glaive from a magical sword/dagger).

JackPhoenix

2023-06-17, 12:37 PM

The blog is definitively interesting, but I have to point out the writer has some pretty unusual interpretations and expectations, and that definitively colors their analysis.

In particular, they seem to view lower-than-10-INT as far less smart than what the game rules and the lore state. For example, I remember them saying that an 8 INT humanoid would barely manage to craft a Glaive by sticking a sword on a pole.

So yeah, absolutely worth a read, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

Monsters may know what they are doing, but I don't think the blog's author does.

Atranen

2023-06-17, 12:46 PM

The blog is definitively interesting, but I have to point out the writer has some pretty unusual interpretations and expectations, and that definitively colors their analysis.

In particular, they seem to view lower-than-10-INT as far less smart than what the game rules and the lore state. For example, I remember them saying that an 8 INT humanoid would barely manage to craft a Glaive by sticking a sword on a pole.

So yeah, absolutely worth a read, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

Not that familiar with the blog, but this is something I hear a lot about dump stats, and it drives me crazy. A score of 8 puts you in the 25th percentile...nothing to write home about, but it's pretty common!

Asmotherion

2023-06-17, 01:52 PM

kazaryu

2023-06-17, 10:29 PM

Depends on the NPC and if they are intelligent enough to make strategic decisions. But anything with more than 10 INT would IMO make the optimal strategic decission that you, as a DM can think of. It's a pitfall to make your NPCs make dump decissions just to make the encounter more easy, unless they have no knowlage.

one would argue that its a pitfall to have a bad guy always able to make the optimal decision while in the heat of combat. they don't have anywhere close to the same amount of time that you do, or information. nor are, necessarily in a calm cool collected state

Asmotherion

2023-06-18, 12:37 AM

one would argue that its a pitfall to have a bad guy always able to make the optimal decision while in the heat of combat. they don't have anywhere close to the same amount of time that you do, or information. nor are, necessarily in a calm cool collected state

Yet the PCs always seem to make calm and collected strategies.

A battle is meant to be a challenge. If you remove the strategic challenge, all you're left with are bags of HP and time wasted that could have been used to role play more. At least that's my view on the issue.

Also, it's one thing if we're talking about an untrained farmer wielding a pitchfork and an other if we speak about a trained soldier. Yeah, some people are not good at fighting; Should they be resolved as Fighting Encounters or Social Encounters? I believe the latter.

I believe there is no point in giving the PCs an easy win in a fight. If a fight occures with someone who's not adept at fighting, I resolve the fight as a cutscene, and tell the PCs to describe how they win. It takes 2 minutes max, and is more fun than having them hit a pinata that can't fight back.

SociopathFriend

2023-06-18, 03:26 AM

I try to roleplay the creature in question. If I'm ever not sure what they'd do or I've narrowed it down to a smaller subset of equal possibilities - well, I have these wonderful objects called dice that can help me decide :smallbiggrin:

^Yeah, that (though again, that comes secondarily to roleplay.)

Oh absolutely. Even a dumb dog is smart enough to decide it wants to run from something scary or bite at something it's angry at. Even minimal things like that are RP.

It's only when you drop down to constructs or certain undead where, "Too stupid to live" is actually on the table.

Leon

2023-06-19, 01:36 AM

Not a DM in a long time but generally the people ive played with have run it well by order of threats presented. Or by how the OpFor would react based on intelligence and/or instinct

First campaign of 5e the sorcerer at one point complained about being singled out by things ~ often after throwing a big spell at stuff and then standing out like a sore thumb as the source

Kane0

2023-06-19, 02:23 AM

In no particular order:

- Whatever target looks hardest to take on
- Whatever target looks easiest to take on
- Whatever target seems to be most dangerous
- Whatever target looks tastiest
- Whatever target carrying a personal grievance
- Whatever player that seems the most bored
- Whatever player that is talking the most smack
- Whatever will ensure the party takes me seriously
- Whatever will ensure the party doesnt TPK

Sulicius

2023-06-19, 04:17 AM

I just attack whatever seems reasonable. Or not, as a DM you can always do whatever you want. I usually make the enemy act a bit suboptimal whenever the fight becomes too difficult for the players.

You don’t need a structured decision tree if everyone has fun.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-19, 12:53 PM

Theodoxus

2023-06-19, 01:54 PM

Spriteless

2023-06-19, 02:36 PM

I will talk it out, then roll dice if the enemy is dumb or doesn't have bunches of info

animorte

2023-06-19, 04:06 PM

Alternative method: target the PC that showed up late to the session.

Easy e

2023-06-19, 04:54 PM

I base my target decisions based on what I think will be most interesting for the players/game.

Sometimes, it is interesting to help a character spotlight their skills. Sometimes it is to force the players to re-assess their priorities in the battle. Sometimes it is to make a character fear for their safety. Often times it is to make them choose an action that they do not normally take.

However, I like to do things that force players to break their normal combat routines.

Edit: Animorte wins!

animorte

2023-06-19, 07:09 PM

Edit: Animorte wins!
:smallbiggrin:

Talakeal

2023-06-19, 07:51 PM

The blog is definitively interesting, but I have to point out the writer has some pretty unusual interpretations and expectations, and that definitively colors their analysis.

In particular, they seem to view lower-than-10-INT as far less smart than what the game rules and the lore state. For example, I remember them saying that an 8 INT humanoid would barely manage to craft a Glaive by sticking a sword on a pole.

So yeah, absolutely worth a read, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

Yeah. I read that blog, and imo it would better be titled "how to let the players win".

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-19, 07:56 PM

Alternative method: target the PC that showed up late to the session. I had to laugh. :smallbiggrin:

Kish

2023-06-19, 07:59 PM

Yeah. I read that blog, and imo it would better be titled "how to let the players win".
I would venture that erring on the side of going too easy on the PCs is vastly preferable to the other way around.

Sigreid

2023-06-19, 09:33 PM

I would venture that erring on the side of going too easy on the PCs is vastly preferable to the other way around.

Depends on the table. Some players get upset if they think they only won because the DM went easy on them.

Witty Username

2023-06-20, 01:05 AM

So how do you, as DMs, select targets to attack?
I'll often just randomise amongst available targets unless something more obvious has already presented as part of the scene.
I do give intelligent monsters the ability to make good tactical decisions, but not at the expense of them having a very real desire to fend off the angry dude in plate mail waving a massive axe in their face.

Broadly, I tend to three flavors:
-The brain dead, whoever is nearest
-The Target, the monsters have an idea of who the ideal target is and go for that
-The Volley, attacks go randomly or pseudo randomly

The brain dead, I use for zombies, golems, and enemies with that are described as reckless or aggressive in unnatural ways. They will attack the nearest enemy regardless of who is doing, retreat or defensive fighting is also likely off the table.

The Target, the enemies either have a general idea of what they think a good target is or have a specific target in the party, Wolves will attack prone targets out of instinct, Bandits will attack unarmored targets, Mind flayers will attack the foolish. But also assassins will go for who the contract is for, or intellect devourers will target members of groups they are trying to infiltrate, etc.
For this, what is a creature trying to accomplish with the fight, and who is on the path for that, Inigo Montoya may not have a tactical reason for attacking the six-fingered man, but that is the goal of the combat, so The Six-fingered man is the priority.

And Volley, any situation that read to me as chaotic, the battalion of archers raining arrows on the party, or a fight with goblins in a crowded melee. This is more a scenario than monster type, generally if the situation is that the monsters cannot read the party as individuals, then they will attack the party, specific persons will be a matter of luck, or even spread depending on what best fits the situation. AoE attacks will fall into this as most of the time it is more fun to hit more people, than hit whoever the best target is.

Chronos

2023-06-20, 07:30 AM

Quoth Damon_Tor:

My plan was always to get to 14th level, then someone would be like "hey, this armor isn't real, geek the mage!" and then I would use Tenser's Transformation followed by Illusory Reality to immediately make the armor real (and give me proficiency with it) but sadly the campaign never got that far.
Congratulations, you've actually found a way to use Tenser's armor proficiency! I think you might be the first.

Let's see, targeting criteria I've used in the past:

10 devils vs. the party: All ten targeted the party's fighter, because according to their best information (which was, unfortunately for them, incorrect), they thought that he was carrying the Macguffin that they were tasked with recovering. The plan was to beat him down and then haul him away, and search the corpse once they had time, back at their HQ.

12 cultists vs. the party: Spread out across all the party members, because their goal was to get every party member's blood on at least one dagger, for an evil ritual they were planning. Once every party member was injured (and several of the cultists dead), they all retreated.

An abominable yeti and three winter wolves vs. the party, four of whom were resting, and two who were on guard: The plan was to sneak past the guards, and attack the sleepers first, because they would be less able to defend themselves, and they were clustered up nicely for breath weapons. The yeti managed to make it to the sleepers and breathe on all of them, but the wolves were caught some distance away. So the wolves fought the sentries and the yeti fought everyone else. Once combat started, one of the two PCs on sentry duty cast Flame Shield, and so the wolves focused on the other one, because no way did they want to bite something that was on fire.

An archmage and his elemental minions vs. the party: This archmage didn't already know the party, but he was able to deduce from appearances that the person in plate mail with holy symbols on it and the person in a robe (the cleric and the sorcerer) were spellcasters (but did not initially identify the bladesinger as such, because he misidentified him as a swashbuckler type). He assigned a water elemental to each of them, with instructions to Whelm them as soon as they tried casting a spell (a tactic that the party druid had already discussed with me, and confirmed would be effective). One of his air elementals he ordered to protect him, while another he set to attacking whoever looked most vulnerable. When the druid also turned into an elemental, the archmage used his own action to try to banish him, because that was the perfect spell for that situation (and he had appropriate materials available to banish elementals, because he knew the summoner's first rule).

A conquest paladin, an evil cleric, and a devil vs. the party: The paladin went straight for the party's barbarian, and vice-versa, because they were relatives and there was some serious bad blood between them. Everyone else (on both sides) tacitly recognized that as a personal matter for them to take care of between themselves (at least, until the other targets were taken out). The evil cleric and the devil both went after whomever they could reach, because it was relatively tight quarters, and not everyone could reach everyone else.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-20, 07:38 AM

A conquest paladin, an evil cleric, and a devil ... walk into a tavern.

This could be the beginning of a fine D&D joke. :smallbiggrin:

Oramac

2023-06-20, 09:31 AM

The Monsters Know What They are Doing is an interesting blog that does a tactics analysis of what a huge creature is likely to do in the combat. He also talks about who and what they are likely to target.

https://www.themonstersknow.com/

So yeah, absolutely worth a read, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

I quite like The Monsters Know, but yes, it can be a bit limited. For example: the MM specifically states that a Lich is likely to have and use several magic items, but the blog doesn't touch on this in any way. When I commented on it and suggested it be added, the response was basically "it's not in the stat block so it doesn't count". Which I think is BS, but whatever.

TL;DR: the blog is a fantastic baseline from which to build an encounter, but it's not necessarily the best for blindly following tactics.

Talakeal

2023-06-20, 01:02 PM

I quite like The Monsters Know, but yes, it can be a bit limited. For example: the MM specifically states that a Lich is likely to have and use several magic items, but the blog doesn't touch on this in any way. When I commented on it and suggested it be added, the response was basically "it's not in the stat block so it doesn't count". Which I think is BS, but whatever.

TL;DR: the blog is a fantastic baseline from which to build an encounter, but it's not necessarily the best for blindly following tactics.

His advice about monsters retreating after losing some HP alone makes it pretty much impossible to lose a combat, especially when you don’t adjust the damage accordingly.

I would venture that erring on the side of going too easy on the PCs is vastly preferable to the other way around.

Maybe. Depends on what “too” means.

If victory is impossible or assured, nothing you do matters, and that is a fail state for the game.

Too easy and players get bored. Too hard and they get frustrated. And of course the whole notion of earned victories feeling better than unearned ones,

Which is better depends on both the players and the game. I generally prefer the harder side, but I imagine in a high RP low combat game too easy would be better.

Of course, my players tend to pout and blame someone else any time they lose regardless of how rare or inconsequential their losses are.

Easy e

2023-06-20, 03:38 PM

It is not about how easy or hard a combat is that make a combat boring.

It is about whether the stakes/objectives of the combat make it worth fighting in the first place.

YMMV

Talakeal

2023-06-20, 04:49 PM

It is not about how easy or hard a combat is that make a combat boring.

It is about whether the stakes/objectives of the combat make it worth fighting in the first place.

YMMV

That sounds really good, but I am not sure how much water it actually holds.

While the narrative explanation absolutely is a factor, I can't imagine slogging through killing 10,000 orcs will ever be fun and exciting regardless of the stakes, and likewise I have had plenty of fun tactical combats with no narrative justification at all; I mean that pretty much describes every tabletop war-game, does it not?

Kish

2023-06-20, 04:59 PM

Maybe. Depends on what “too” means.

If victory is impossible or assured, nothing you do matters, and that is a fail state for the game.

Too easy and players get bored. Too hard and they get frustrated. And of course the whole notion of earned victories feeling better than unearned ones,

Which is better depends on both the players and the game. I generally prefer the harder side, but I imagine in a high RP low combat game too easy would be better.

Of course, my players tend to pout and blame someone else any time they lose regardless of how rareor inconsequential their losses are.
See, analyzing that from a perspective that doesn't assume your players are being 100% unreasonable and you're being 100% reasonable, it looks a whole lot like: My games are consistently too hard for my players, but I'd rather blame them than fix it.

Going back to the quote I responded to:

Yeah. I read that blog, and imo it would better be titled "how to let the players win".
I understand that people online often use "player" and "character" more or less interchangeably, but I think the distinction is critical here. If the characters lose but the players are still having fun, well and good. If the players lose, it means either the game being disastrously overtuned or that an RPG went from cooperative to competitive somewhere, and in my book that's already a fail state.

Talakeal

2023-06-20, 05:56 PM

See, analyzing that from a perspective that doesn't assume your players are being 100% unreasonable and you're being 100% reasonable, it looks a whole lot like: My games are consistently too hard for my players, but I'd rather blame them than fix it.

Trying to assign percentages of blame, especially with strangers on the internet, is a fool's game.

Of course I don't believe I am 100% reasonable and my player's are 100% unreasonable.

Again though, you use a lot of words like "consistent" and "too" in there.

How often does one have to lose before it is "consistent"? How much does one have to complain and be a sore loser before something is "too" challenging?

Does the fact that my players also pout and blame other people in competitive board and card games mean that I need to "fix" those games by letting them win?

On an objective level, my players lose about one fight every 2 years of real time. Since we game every two weeks on average, and have about five encounters a session on average, that means they win more than 99.5% of their battles; which is better than any real world military units, sports team, or fictional pulp / action / super hero (barring a few outliers due to small sample size). I would not call that too hard and certainly not consistently so, but that is subjective.

IMO its not "my game" that is the issue here, as said players are sore losers regardless of what system we use or who is running it. Honestly, we have a lot fewer issues when I run because I know how to deal with their eccentricities.

I understand that people online often use "player" and "character" more or less interchangeably, but I think the distinction is critical here. If the characters lose but the players are still having fun, well and good. If the players lose, it means either the game being disastrously overtuned or that an RPG went from cooperative to competitive somewhere, and in my book that's already a fail state.

As for terminology, I prefer to say "players" rather than "player's characters" as it is more immersive. I don't see that as any sort of red flag, although I could certainly see a GM referring to the monsters losing or winning as "I won / lost" as one.

I am not sure what you mean by "player's losing", but if you mean "the players don't have fun when their character's lose" then I say bull-poop to that. Being a sore loser doesn't mean the game is a disaster or that people need to let you win to improve it.

On a broader level, a game being "too hard" or winning being "not fun" can even be a good thing, as it gives you motivation to improve, and makes your victories seem all the sweeter by comparison. Sometimes I think that by dumbing down my games so much I have actually made the player's problems worse.

Psyren

2023-06-20, 06:54 PM

It is not about how easy or hard a combat is that make a combat boring.

It is about whether the stakes/objectives of the combat make it worth fighting in the first place.

YMMV

I don't think a fight necessarily has to be narratively significant to be exciting. Sometimes the party just stumbles across a hungry predator (or predators), and the fact that you're in their hunting grounds where they have a tactical advantage of some kind adds some textured complications. The same goes for random enclaves of undead, roaming brigands etc. Have enemies use terrain and tactics and the players will remember those battles even if there's no objective other than basic survival.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-20, 08:16 PM

kazaryu

2023-06-21, 04:17 AM

Yet the PCs always seem to make calm and collected strategies. what kinda games you been playing? my Players are almost as panicked as the PC's they're controlling. but even that said...so what? even if your players *are* always playing as though their PC's are calm cool and collected...they're heroes. they're literally not meant to be like everyone else.

A battle is meant to be a challenge. If you remove the strategic challenge, all you're left with are bags of HP and time wasted that could have been used to role play more. At least that's my view on the issue. there's a *Wide* gap between 'always makes the optimal decision' and 'remove all strategic challenge' come to think of it, there's also a difference between 'a strategic challenge' and 'enemies using strategy and tactics' the latter being a subset of the former. in other words, you can have a 'strategic challenge' (i.e. a challenge in which the party must use strategy) while using enemies that are incapable of tactics (i.e. brainless monsters like zombies). because you can include things like environmental conditions or weakness/strengths that the party needs to work around, and those have nothing to do with the tactical acumen of the antagonists.

Further, you imply that by having enemies behave realistically in combat (i.e. not always seeing/acting on the optimal play) that the combat is...easy? why? are you implying that non-intelligent enemies can't be a threat to your players? you must have some insanely talented players, and an insane talent for simulating non-sapience.

Talakeal

2023-06-21, 10:17 AM

there's a *Wide* gap between 'always makes the optimal decision' and 'remove all strategic challenge' come to think of it, there's also a difference between 'a strategic challenge' and 'enemies using strategy and tactics' the latter being a subset of the former. in other words, you can have a 'strategic challenge' (i.e. a challenge in which the party must use strategy) while using enemies that are incapable of tactics (i.e. brainless monsters like zombies). because you can include things like environmental conditions or weakness/strengths that the party needs to work around, and those have nothing to do with the tactical acumen of the antagonists.

Further, you imply that by having enemies behave realistically in combat (i.e. not always seeing/acting on the optimal play) that the combat is...easy? why? are you implying that non-intelligent enemies can't be a threat to your players? you must have some insanely talented players, and an insane talent for simulating non-sapience.

As is, the math of most RPGs is heavily stacked in the player's favor, so much so that the players basically can't lose unless they do something monumentally stupid or have a build weakness this particular monster exploits, and even then the odds are still in their favor and they need cold dice on top of it.

If you then make the monsters play with actively bad tactics on top of that, you get to the point where the players don't need to put any thought into the game at all, and at that point combat is just whittling down bags of HP waiting for the RP to start.

You know, I wonder if anyone has done the math and looked at what the actual odds are of a monster of any given CR actually winning a fight against equal level PCs in a white room scenario. I would be surprised if it was even one percent. As I said above, in my system its less than 1/200, and that is with attrition, and play testers feel like my game is harder than D&D. I am really curious now, I am gonna do some research.

Unoriginal

2023-06-21, 10:53 AM

As is, the math of most RPGs is heavily stacked in the player's favor, so much so that the players basically can't lose unless they do something monumentally stupid or have a build weakness this particular monster exploits, and even then the odds are still in their favor and they need cold dice on top of it.

If you then make the monsters play with actively bad tactics on top of that, you get to the point where the players don't need to put any thought into the game at all, and at that point combat is just whittling down bags of HP waiting for the RP to start.

You know, I wonder if anyone has done the math and looked at what the actual odds are of a monster of any given CR actually winning a fight against equal level PCs in a white room scenario. I would be surprised if it was even one percent. As I said above, in my system its less than 1/200, and that is with attrition, and play testers feel like my game is harder than D&D. I am really curious now, I am gonna do some research.

A solo monster with a CR = PCs level is an Easy fight against 5 PCs.

It should be basically impossible for such a fight to seriously injure a PC before goimg down, in a white room. Heck, that fight should barely cost the PCs anything in term of ressources.

Now that's white room. A kobold armed with nothing except a flint lighter can be a very dangerous foe, in the right environment and context.

kazaryu

2023-06-21, 10:07 PM

As is, the math of most RPGs is heavily stacked in the player's favor idk about 'most' RPG's. but if true...then the reason for that design is that PC's are meant to be able to do multiple combats without resting...and with every combat they theoretically get weaker. that said...

so much so that the players basically can't lose unless they do something monumentally stupid or have a build weakness this particular monster exploits, and even then the odds are still in their favor and they need cold dice on top of it. this is categorically untrue. even without the DM monkeying with statblocks there are plenty of ways to use the existing monsters to create a challenge. non sapient monsters exist, depending on the exact party makeup in might require a bit of thought on the DM's part; sending a squad of zombies by themselves against a party with a high wis cleric isn't a great idea if you're trying to challenge the party. some parties are jsut straight up stronger against certain types of foes. However, if you instead had what was effectively a never ending stream of zombies/skeletons mixed in with some monsters that are more substantial, then now you've got yourself an encounter. even if everyone involved is int 1 and don't use any advanced tactics.

If you then make the monsters play with actively bad tactics on top of that, you get to the point where the players don't need to put any thought into the game at all, and at that point combat is just whittling down bags of HP waiting for the RP to start. you can make an engaging encounters (one where your party puts thought into winning) without making it so hard that the thought is necessary. in other words, just because thought *isn't * necessary, doesn't mean your party believes that. what you *Really* want is for your party to believe they need to engage with the combat, even if they don't really. and that can be done in several ways. the enemy playing tactically is one way. but just having a ton of damage output is another way. Very little makes Players panic faster than losing more than half their HP in one go. especially if its on the tankiest among them. they don't know that the monster can probably be dropped in a round or 2. all they know is 'FFUUUUUUUCK' (paraphrased). obviously not all players will react like that, but still.

but even that aside, you can use things like environments to create encounters that are extremely dangerous, even without crazy tactics. encounters near cliff or other environmental hazards (lava) against enemies with forms of forced movement (like giant eagles or roc's), for example.

even just throwing enemies that are way too strong for them can prompt your players to engage in the fight, because they need to use tactics to make up for getting statchecked.

give the party objectives that aren't just 'kill the enemy'.
-if they lack magic weapons, send an incoporeal creature after them (or something thats immune to non magic damage). now the objective isn't 'kill' its 'survive' or maybe through clever tactics they can distract it and survive long enough for the casters to kill it with cantrips. maybe...but that all depends on what you choose to send, and how much you're willing to monkey with its statblock
-there's some kind of really bad ritual thats going to be done in X turns. you need to get there and stop it. this could even be done to add a timer to an entire dungeon. you have X amount of time before the ritual is complete. in that time you need to explore this area and find...' then every encounter, even if its not a challenge on its own, is using time. party is encouraged to get through it as quickly as possible. But that will generally involve using good tactics or spending resources. making the fight in the ritual chamber even harder.

You know, I wonder if anyone has done the math and looked at what the actual odds are of a monster of any given CR actually winning a fight against equal level PCs in a white room scenario. I would be surprised if it was even one percent. As I said above, in my system its less than 1/200, and that is with attrition, and play testers feel like my game is harder than D&D. I am really curious now, I am gonna do some research. ah...sounds like you're not building encounters correctly. fair enough, the game does include CR which can be confusing...since oyu're not supposed to use CR exclusively to build encounters. the game recommends not significantly going above the parties average level with CR, but in 5e you actually calculate encounter difficulty based on a weird exp calculation. at least thats how its intended.

for a party of 4 level 5 PC's. you'd actually need ~2 cr 5 monsters to get somewhere between a hard and deadly encounter. But it doesn't end there, because the games definitions of deadly isn't 'is at significant risk of losing' its 'one of the PC's might die. and the party could lose'. again, remember most encounters aren't meant to be the only encounter the party faces between long rests. you might throw a deadly encounter at the party after a series of hard/medium encounters where their resources are somewhat depleted.

If you're commonly sending encounters where there's just 1 enemy, then you may be running afoul of a different problem, action economy. if you outnumber your enemies, you get a significant advantage. and a 4:1 advantage? thats nuts. thats why some monsters have legendary actions and lair actions. to help even out the action economy so they can be used solo vs parties.

Sigreid

2023-06-22, 02:51 PM

Of course you can just avoid the whole issue with wide area AoE. Every goblin has at will meteor swarm! 😀

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-22, 03:31 PM

Here's the thing. Math matters.

If the party has a 1% chance of someone dying in a fight against an equal number of CR = level opponents, then the expected lifetime of a party member is (assuming you're doing 6-8, median 7 such fights per day, not even considering attrition within a day)

Adventuring Days | % chance of survival.
1 | 93%
2 | 87%
--reaches level 2
3 | 81%
4 | 75%
--reaches level 3
5 | 70%
6 | 66%
7 | 61%
8 | 57%
--reaches level 4
...
12| 43%
--reaches level 5

Yeah. This gets bad fast. You're looking at a less than 50% chance of reaching T2 for a given party member. If instead you say that this equal matchup should be a 50-50 shot...

Adventuring Days | % chance of survival
1 | 0.8%
2 | 6.1e-3%
...

Yeah, you don't reach level 2.

The PCs must, as a critical piece of game design, win the ultra-vast majority (as in well over 99%) of equal matchups without loss of life or serious (ie retirement worthy) injury. Or they must fight much much much much much less. The math simply does not work any other way.

If you're killing a PC in even as much as 1/10 fights, one of two things is true.
1) your turnover is tremendous. Hope your players signed up for a meatgrinder.
2) you're very firmly in a 5MWD scenario (ie 1 fight per adventuring day with the same leveling reward as a full day of adventuring, but without the full day's worth of adjusted XP). Which is inherently pathological in D&D.

Easy e

2023-06-22, 04:16 PM

As is, the math of most RPGs is heavily stacked in the player's favor, so much so that the players basically can't lose unless they do something monumentally stupid or have a build weakness this particular monster exploits, and even then the odds are still in their favor and they need cold dice on top of it.

If you then make the monsters play with actively bad tactics on top of that, you get to the point where the players don't need to put any thought into the game at all, and at that point combat is just whittling down bags of HP waiting for the RP to start.

You know, I wonder if anyone has done the math and looked at what the actual odds are of a monster of any given CR actually winning a fight against equal level PCs in a white room scenario. I would be surprised if it was even one percent. As I said above, in my system its less than 1/200, and that is with attrition, and play testers feel like my game is harder than D&D. I am really curious now, I am gonna do some research.

Again, it is not about the the difficulty of the fight. It is about the stakes.

If the PCs kill all the monsters and are not injured, it doesn't matter if those monsters also destroyed the only bridge across the Chasm of Unusually High Winds and you have 2 hours to figure out a way across before the BBEG does terrible things to the player's favorite NPCs.

That is what makes the fight meaningful. Can the PCs defeat the monsters BEFORE they destroy the bridge that is the "only" way across the Chasm of Unusually High Winds? Now, it is worth spending resources to accomplish the goal for the players.

Recall that death is NOT the only fail state in an RPG. It is perhaps the least interesting, as where do you go from there?

@Phoenix - Great analysis there.

Talakeal

2023-06-22, 06:24 PM

Both of the above posts seem to conflate character death with losing a combat.

While there is a lot of overlap, I would say it is easy to imagine the players losing a fight / failing to achieve their objectives without any casualties, and on the flip side having one or more PC deaths while still winning the battle or accomplishing their objectives.

Of course, over here in Bizarro world the players care a lot more about both their pride and their wealth than they do about their PCs lives, to the point where I basically have to beg them not to suicide their PCs after losing a fight or when it looks like they are about to lose a fight. In my last current game for example, they were going to get killed by kobolds, and then surrendered and paid a ransom, at which point they moped for several hours about how they would never be able to recover from the monetary loss and that they were fools not to have just fought to the death and then brought in new PCs with full WBL.

Here's the thing. Math matters.

If the party has a 1% chance of someone dying in a fight against an equal number of CR = level opponents, then the expected lifetime of a party member is (assuming you're doing 6-8, median 7 such fights per day, not even considering attrition within a day)

Adventuring Days | % chance of survival.
1 | 93%
2 | 87%
--reaches level 2
3 | 81%
4 | 75%
--reaches level 3
5 | 70%
6 | 66%
7 | 61%
8 | 57%
--reaches level 4
...
12| 43%
--reaches level 5

Yeah. This gets bad fast. You're looking at a less than 50% chance of reaching T2 for a given party member. If instead you say that this equal matchup should be a 50-50 shot...

Adventuring Days | % chance of survival
1 | 0.8%
2 | 6.1e-3%
...

Yeah, you don't reach level 2.

The PCs must, as a critical piece of game design, win the ultra-vast majority (as in well over 99%) of equal matchups without loss of life or serious (ie retirement worthy) injury. Or they must fight much much much much much less. The math simply does not work any other way.

If you're killing a PC in even as much as 1/10 fights, one of two things is true.
1) your turnover is tremendous. Hope your players signed up for a meatgrinder.
2) you're very firmly in a 5MWD scenario (ie 1 fight per adventuring day with the same leveling reward as a full day of adventuring, but without the full day's worth of adjusted XP). Which is inherently pathological in D&D.

If you are talking to me specifically, it isn't 1/10 fights. Players lose about 1/200 fights; and I would say deaths are about equally rare.

While I agree with your analysis overall, that still raises the question about how hard should it be to get to level 20?

What is the target number here? Should it be a real accomplishment, or more or less a guaranteed reward for putting in the time at the table? Somewhere in between?

In any event, I don't think that 5E needs to be significantly easier than it already is. I have certainly never made such complaints. The monsters know what they are doing blog makes combat drastically easier than it already is, without any adjustments to xp, treasure, or recovery rates. And worse, it does it asymmetrically, as the HP reduction applies to certain creature types at different rates.

Kane0

2023-06-22, 06:44 PM

Every campaign i play someone dies in tier 1, then maybe another about one-third of the time in tier 2, after that its a case of getting them rezzed within a day or two if we have any combat fatalities.
NPCs notwithstanding of course, they die in about 5 to 15 percent of combats they participate in.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-22, 06:45 PM

If you are talking to me specifically, it isn't 1/10 fights. Players lose about 1/200 fights; and I would say deaths are about equally rare.

While I agree with your analysis overall, that still raises the question about how hard should it be to get to level 20?

What is the target number here? Should it be a real accomplishment, or more or less a guaranteed reward for putting in the time at the table? Somewhere in between?

In any event, I don't think that 5E needs to be significantly easier than it already is. I have certainly never made such complaints. The monsters know what they are doing blog makes combat drastically easier than it already is, without any adjustments to xp, treasure, or recovery rates. And worse, it does it asymmetrically, as the HP reduction applies to certain creature types at different rates.

1/10 was a number, pulled from air. Personally, I'd say that player character deaths (not getting knocked to 0, dead dead) should be rare and should be generally due to either a player/group screwup or an intentional sacrifice. Random "oh well, you failed your save and are now dead" or "yeah, you didn't cheese things to go first, so now you died." has no place at any table I want to be at.

Getting to level 20 should not be "a real accomplishment". It's an expectation, given enough time. A fallable one--you can screw up or intentionally sacrifice yourself. But "weren't optimal" =/= screwed up. By a long shot.

Personally, "challenge" is a crappy thing to try for in a TTRPG. If you want that, there are video games that do it a lot better and funner. TTRPGs excel at different things. Because "challenge" really means "playing the DM" or "finding loopholes" in a TTRPG. And people yell and scream about rules that take away their tools to make it not challenging.

5e is "easy" because people believe that the minimum optimization standard is way higher than system expectations. And run 5MWD for various reasons. Play it as designed. No multiclassing, no feats, very few and only random magic items, long adventuring days. See how you feel about it then.

As for the blog, never read it, never will. Don't care.

Oh, and 1/200 doesn't really change the numbers much. The chances of getting to tier 2 (roughly 12 adventuring days) with a 1/200 death rate per combat are only 66%. And it goes down from there. If we assume the leveling pace is constant at 4 adventuring days past level 3 or so (which basically tracks the DMG and is simple enough to calculate), it's 76 adventuring days to level 20, or 532 combats at 7/day. At 1/200 fatality rate, that's a 7% survival chance.

Real life is enough of a campaign killer. Being a meat grinder DM only makes it worse.

For the record, the total number of characters who have died-died (and some got better) in nearly 10 years of running 2 games a week (~16 campaigns at this point) is...single digits. In fact, I can probably name them all off.

1. The idiot who challenged a dire yeti to single combat at level 2. Didn't get better.
2. The goblin bard who both blew himself up and got trapped in a couple really really bad situations. Got better.
3. The cleric who stupidly put himself blocking the way, then got 3 crits in a row from a mindflayer, including a brain extraction crit. Didn't get better until a different campaign, rezzed as an NPC.
4. The hexblade who got finger of death'd when he only had 85 max HP. Face an ithillich at level 9 and you get what's coming. Got immediately better.
5. The character who got smacked after getting downed by a vindictive NPC. Got immediately better.
...
I think that's all of them. I might have missed one or two, but not more. Not counting the retconned one in the first session due to OOC player stupid behavior.

Talakeal

2023-06-22, 08:00 PM

1/10 was a number, pulled from air. Personally, I'd say that player character deaths (not getting knocked to 0, dead dead) should be rare and should be generally due to either a player/group screwup or an intentional sacrifice. Random "oh well, you failed your save and are now dead" or "yeah, you didn't cheese things to go first, so now you died." has no place at any table I want to be at.

Generally agree.
Random deaths are pretty lame. But if random deaths are actually impossible, it is really hard to maintain the verisimilitude of the setting.

Getting to level 20 should not be "a real accomplishment". It's an expectation, given enough time. A fallable one--you can screw up or intentionally sacrifice yourself. But "weren't optimal" =/= screwed up. By a long shot.

That's kind of a shame, I think it would be nice to feel a sense of accomplishment for "beating the game".

I guess you would need to define "weren't optimal" though. Are you talking about like forum optimization of playing a cheesy internet build or do you just mean knowing the game rules and have a basic grasp of tactics?

Personally, "challenge" is a crappy thing to try for in a TTRPG. If you want that, there are video games that do it a lot better and funner. TTRPGs excel at different things. Because "challenge" really means "playing the DM" or "finding loopholes" in a TTRPG. And people yell and scream about rules that take away their tools to make it not challenging.

I have never found much merit in the argument "X thing in RPGs sucks and should be removed because if I wanted that I would do Y other media instead".

I have never seen a video game that has anything like the same sort of tactical experience as an RPG. The original Fallout comes close, but that game is 25 years in the past and was never ever especially challenging to begin with.

5e is "easy" because people believe that the minimum optimization standard is way higher than system expectations. And run 5MWD for various reasons. Play it as designed. No multiclassing, no feats, very few and only random magic items, long adventuring days. See how you feel about it then.

Perhaps. I don't have a ton of experience with 5E, I just know that I have never actually felt any tension or danger in the game, including the time our level 7 party went up against a death knight, and the buzz I have heard online seems to back up that it is very undertuned.

As for the blog, never read it, never will. Don't care.

Ok. But that was kind of how we got on this whole topic of conversation; someone recommended that blog and I said that you don't really need a blog to tell you how to play the monsters dumber or to give them lower stats.

Oh, and 1/200 doesn't really change the numbers much. The chances of getting to tier 2 (roughly 12 adventuring days) with a 1/200 death rate per combat are only 66%. And it goes down from there. If we assume the leveling pace is constant at 4 adventuring days past level 3 or so (which basically tracks the DMG and is simple enough to calculate), it's 76 adventuring days to level 20, or 532 combats at 7/day. At 1/200 fatality rate, that's a 7% survival chance.

Ok, two things.

First, that 1/200 is of *someone* dying, not of any given PC dying. I imagine that changes the odds drastically.
Second, yikes, 5E is both extremely fast and extremely combat intensive. I literally would rather get a second job than play through 532 combats which weren't tactical stimulating.

What the heck is the point of so dang much combat? Why put it into an RPG if the outcome is predetermined? Why not just have a freeform RPG or skill based RPG where you don't have to do so damn much pointless grinding?

Real life is enough of a campaign killer. Being a meat grinder DM only makes it worse.

Agreed. A meat-grinder is a different sort of campaign that I wouldn't be too interested in.

Unless you are defining meat-grinder as a game where it is possible to die through a combination of bad luck and not putting any thought into tactics, which seems to be a pretty common opinion on the forum.

For the record, the total number of characters who have died-died (and some got better) in nearly 10 years of running 2 games a week (~16 campaigns at this point) is...single digits. In fact, I can probably name them all off.

1. The idiot who challenged a dire yeti to single combat at level 2. Didn't get better.
2. The goblin bard who both blew himself up and got trapped in a couple really really bad situations. Got better.
3. The cleric who stupidly put himself blocking the way, then got 3 crits in a row from a mindflayer, including a brain extraction crit. Didn't get better until a different campaign, rezzed as an NPC.
4. The hexblade who got finger of death'd when he only had 85 max HP. Face an ithillich at level 9 and you get what's coming. Got immediately better.
5. The character who got smacked after getting downed by a vindictive NPC. Got immediately better.
...
I think that's all of them. I might have missed one or two, but not more. Not counting the retconned one in the first session due to OOC player stupid behavior.

That sounds about the same for me.

Although I have a reputation as a killer GM, I generally only lose a PC once every few years. I would honestly prefer immortal PCs if my players would let me (but again, they value pride and gold above their character's lives and won't let me get away with it) but I still need enough challenge that the players need to learn the rules, communicate with one another, and pay attention in combat, where they have the option to fail and avoid a railroad, and where the threats are credible enough that the setting doesn't look like a farce.

Kane0

2023-06-22, 10:26 PM

I don't have a ton of experience with 5E

What the heck is the point of so dang much combat?

Its not cocnsistent across levels. You dont need much XP at all to get to level 3 or so, then it starts stretching out so you spend most of your time in the 5-13 band. Its one of those little things to encourage you to get into a particular spot on the progression where you are notably heroic but not ridiculously so, rather than steadily going from peasant+ to demigod.

Xervous

2023-06-23, 06:44 AM

What the heck is the point of so dang much combat? Why put it into an RPG if the outcome is predetermined? Why not just have a freeform RPG or skill based RPG where you don't have to do so damn much pointless grinding?

As I view it, the outcome of any single combat without resource concerns is probably a W for the PCs. The greater depth comes in a GM presenting more optional objectives in the adventure than they can accomplish on cruise control. Just rescuing the princess is easy. Rescuing the princess while obtaining loot from hazards on the side is less certain. You don’t need to throw lethal encounters at the party, they’ll walk into an optional meat grinder of their own free will if a proper prize is dangled.

Kane0

2023-06-23, 07:14 AM

Or in my case, the added complexity appears to be 'youre on a boat' or 'dont let them sound the alarm' about half the time.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-23, 07:22 AM

For the record, the total number of characters who have died-died (and some got better) in nearly 10 years of running 2 games a week (~16 campaigns at this point) is...single digits. In fact, I can probably name them all off. {snip}
I think that's all of them. I might have missed one or two, but not more. Not counting the retconned one in the first session due to OOC player stupid behavior.There would have been one more, but Jo Vasha had a second artifact/thing that forestalled the opportunity to do the sacrificial one, which was my clear intent.

I am still not sure how I feel about that.

Frogreaver

2023-06-23, 10:36 AM

Unoriginal

2023-06-23, 10:43 AM

Keep it fresh. Unless there’s an interesting world building reason for enemies of similar types to have similar tactics then there’s no need to lock them down to overly specific and counterable tactics.

I had this idea a long time ago and never got the chance to do it, but I wanted to have the PCs encounter the students of a fencing school using their school's signature technique... badly, and then have the PCs meet one of the school's masters, who would use the technique properly and devastatingly.

kazaryu

2023-06-23, 11:43 AM

If you are talking to me specifically, it isn't 1/10 fights. Players lose about 1/200 fights; and I would say deaths are about equally rare. based on what types of encounters? like specifically, how are you building your encounter.

While I agree with your analysis overall, that still raises the question about how hard should it be to get to level 20?

What is the target number here? Should it be a real accomplishment, or more or less a guaranteed reward for putting in the time at the table? Somewhere in between? you as the DM have the ability to make things as challenging as you want for your party. similar to the above question...what is limiting you? you say that players are having too easy a time winning...so why aren't you making the encounters harder? what is it about how you design encounters that is preventing you from making combat harder? I don't mean to come across as aggressive, or judgmental. but you seem to be having a problem that i've simply not encountered. and if its harming your enjoyment, i truly do want to see if i can help fix that.

as far as what the challenge 'should' be, the beauty of 5e is that this is a question that should be asked by each table. because even if every table was looking for a challenge, the exact level of that challenge is going to be different for every player. thats why video games have difficulty slides. its not just to allow people to play through with no challenge, its also to accomodate the people that enjoy a challenge, to a degree at least, but don't like having to put in a ton of time and stress to learn to play 100% optimally. or to accommodate the people that don't enjoy replaying the same level over and over just to optimize their performance.

That's kind of a shame, I think it would be nice to feel a sense of accomplishment for "beating the game". for some people that comes from the story, not the mechanics. similar to the satisfaction you get having finished reading a book.

Perhaps. I don't have a ton of experience with 5E, I just know that I have never actually felt any tension or danger in the game, including the time our level 7 party went up against a death knight, and the buzz I have heard online seems to back up that it is very undertuned.

-there are many reasons why this could have occurred. just to name a few:
-if the deathknight was alone then...well..yeah. it has no legendary actions or lair actions, and no legendary resistances. and more than favoring the PC's. 5e as a system MASSIVELY favors the side of a battle that has more participants. which tends to be the PC's. so even though the death knight has a few scary actions (a 70 damage fireball, for example). once that action is done...so long as you survive that, you have a ton of actions of your own to then take it out on the death knight. this gets especially bad if your party attempts to CC the death knight, because now it has to succeed on multiple defenses to prevent being controlled or things roll even more heavily against it. but even without the inherently swingy nature of 1vparty fights. more actions just tends to mean more likely to win, even in a slug off.
-DM might have been going easy on you, and he telegraphed that he was going easy. as i mentioned earlier. having a real challenge isn't as important as the PC's feeling like they have a real challenge. But that isn't really a system issue...the system itself is only as good as the DM running it. and i don't say that to insult the DM that ran that encounter, im just saying that the DM affects how a system feels far more than the system itself.

What the heck is the point of so dang much combat? Why put it into an RPG if the outcome is predetermined? Why not just have a freeform RPG or skill based RPG where you don't have to do so damn much pointless grinding?

the game is designed around the assumption that, for games that want a challenge, you're not just sending 1 encounter at the PC's per day. Its baked into the system that the PC's should need short rests...which means they need multiple encounters to drain their resources. the 'challenge' therefore isn't just 'can we survive this encounters' its 'how do we beat this encounter as efficiently as possible so that we can preserve as many resources as possible for future encounters'. Thats why spells can be so damn effective...most of them (especially at the lower levels) can only last through 1 encounter. they're like consumables, once you've used them that day, they're gone, so you gotta use them on the correct encounter.

DnD at its roots is a wargame/dungeon crawler. resource management is at its core. From what i've gathered this has been diluted as time has passed. but much of current design still borrows from that legacy. which means, its still going to be geared toward that legacy.

Talakeal

2023-06-23, 01:42 PM

As I view it, the outcome of any single combat without resource concerns is probably a W for the PCs. The greater depth comes in a GM presenting more optional objectives in the adventure than they can accomplish on cruise control. Just rescuing the princess is easy. Rescuing the princess while obtaining loot from hazards on the side is less certain. You don’t need to throw lethal encounters at the party, they’ll walk into an optional meat grinder of their own free will if a proper prize is dangled.

Agreed.

Of course, it is these "optional" encounters that cause wipes, as the players will never pass up an opportunity for a shiny reward. I have spent the last three sessions of my current mega-dungeon game with the PCs making no progress because they are just throwing themselves at the optional "superboss" that is guarding a trove of shiny magic items rather than just bypassing it and coming back when they are higher level, and the biggest drama in recent memory comes from two campaigns ago where there was an optional fight against a monster that was guarding a magic item but came back stronger each time it was killed like the classic hydra of myth.

based on what types of encounters? like specifically, how are you building your encounter.

That's a very broad question which requires a very long answer. Mind narrowing it down a bit?

If you like I could actually go to the effort of mapping out my last several campaigns, but that is a heck of a lot more time than invested than this conversation actually warrants. Although if you actually want to go through an in depth discussion with me I am willing to go there.

I will say that my party continually struggles with encounters that have some sort of time pressure or where the bad guys get reinforcements as they very much do not like splitting the party and tend to huddle into a little ball and hope the enemies come to them. This also makes them very vulnerable to ranged AoE.

you as the DM have the ability to make things as challenging as you want for your party. similar to the above question...what is limiting you? you say that players are having too easy a time winning...so why aren't you making the encounters harder? what is it about how you design encounters that is preventing you from making combat harder? I don't mean to come across as aggressive, or judgmental. but you seem to be having a problem that i've simply not encountered. and if its harming your enjoyment, i truly do want to see if i can help fix that.

The issues are mostly narratives.

If things are too easy, the world looks like a joke. NPCs can't grasp simple tactics and should have been wiped out years ago, apex predators have stats low enough that they would be killed by their prey, and monsters that terrorize an entire region but would be killed by any random militia at the table.

It's just really disappointing and narratively unsatisfying when something that has been built up like a tarrasque, or great wyrm, or arch-devil, goes down in four rounds without ever really being a threat to the PCs.

On the flip side, just using more / stronger monsters feels weird. If every dungeon has a CR20 dragon in it, dragons stop feeling special, and it makes no sense for every town to have a level 14 town arch-mage to reign in the PCs.

I was had a 3E DM who had an orcish / drow army where every single member of it was in the high teens, or Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal having level 13 fighters as literal quarry slaves, or the City of Union in the ELH having level 30 beat cops.

It's just looks silly.

as far as what the challenge 'should' be, the beauty of 5e is that this is a question that should be asked by each table. because even if every table was looking for a challenge, the exact level of that challenge is going to be different for every player. thats why video games have difficulty slides. its not just to allow people to play through with no challenge, its also to accomodate the people that enjoy a challenge, to a degree at least, but don't like having to put in a ton of time and stress to learn to play 100% optimally. or to accommodate the people that don't enjoy replaying the same level over and over just to optimize their performance.

Yeah, it would just be nice if I had some objective standard I could shoot for. I have a reputation as a "killer DM" both in person and on the forums, but when I read / listen to APs, I always see far more dead and defeated PCs than I do at my own table.

As for "100% optimally", my games almost always have optional side objectives or scales for how well the players do. The problem is that my players value wealth and pride above anything else, and so they expect 100% success rate but don't want to put in more than the minimum effort for it.

They refuse to talk to one another or stick to any plans they do make, refuse to buy or use consumables, and refuse to scout or otherwise use information gathering abilities, and then they tell me that my games are overturned not because they lost or died, but because their treasure haul for the session wasn't higher than the previous session.

I really wish I had some for of benchmarks tabout what "overtuned" actually means so we could discuss it objectively.

kazaryu

2023-06-23, 06:08 PM

...and then they tell me that my games are overturned not because they lost or died, but because their treasure haul for the session wasn't higher than the previous session.

I really wish I had some for of benchmarks tabout what "overtuned" actually means so we could discuss it objectively. im putting this first, because i think that, at some level its the core of the problem.

to start off, your players are wrong. sort of. it reads to me like 'overtuned' is just code for 'harder than we'd like'. people, in general, like to phrase subjective things in objective ways. overall, to me this sounds like you need to have an out of character chat with your players. discuss with them what you enjoy, as a DM, and see what it is they enjoy as players. it seems that there's some level of expectations mismatch between you and your players that needs to be drawn into the light.

That's a very broad question which requires a very long answer. Mind narrowing it down a bit?

If you like I could actually go to the effort of mapping out my last several campaigns, but that is a heck of a lot more time than invested than this conversation actually warrants. Although if you actually want to go through an in depth discussion with me I am willing to go there. it definitely might require a more in depth discussion, basically im trying to find the basis for your claim that its seemingly impossible to threaten PC's in 5e. like how you came to that conclusion. What monsters are you comparing to what party that makes it seem like that? that type of stuff.

and im all for an in depth discussion, as i said, i struggle to empathize with that opinion because that hasn't been my experience at all. i have no trouble turning up the screws on my players when the situation permits.

The issues are mostly narratives.

If things are too easy, the world looks like a joke.
[quote]NPCs can't grasp simple tactics and should have been wiped out years ago,

-well, it depends on how you contextualize things. think of take..your basic bandits. they seem well armed and what not...but they may also simply be used to intimidating their prey into compliance. they've never really been challenged, they just discovered that if you draw a sword on a lot of people, they'll surrender. and the only reason they haven't been wiped out is that noone has actually had the balls to stand up to them. enter the PC's.
-alternatively, an organization that primarily operates in secret. they have 'guards' and weapons and such...but its always been secondary, secrecy is what keeps them safe. once they're under direct attack, they panic. they've never *really* practiced fighting. certainly not against anyone as well armed and competent as PC's are.

there are plenty of ways groups can exist and even thrive without having tactical combat awareness. indeed, arguably, the ones that actually are good at combat should be special, the more dangerous ones. not just your everyday briggand thats never had a tough fight.

apex predators have stats low enough that they would be killed by their prey, this is actually a common misconception. prey win against their predators all the time. not all in a direct fight, it depends on how the prey has evolved. but evolution goes both ways. Just as the lion is evolved to hunt, its prey is evolved to survive being hunted. In fact thats why so many predators use methods of hunting that aren't just a straight brawl. for example ambush predators rely on surprise. Others are pack hunters, relying on numbers. Point being that many real world 'prey' animals legitimately *do* have 'stats' to body their predators. its just that avoiding a fight is better...because you're less likely to get injured if you don't fight.

and monsters that terrorize an entire region but would be killed by any random militia at the table. this one is a bit harder to really justify, mostly because its so general. how strong are you expecting 'random' milita to be? whats in the region they're terrorizing? what monster are you thinking of when you write this?

It's just really disappointing and narratively unsatisfying when something that has been built up like a tarrasque, or great wyrm, or arch-devil, goes down in four rounds without ever really being a threat to the PCs. so make it more of a threat, this was another thing that confused me. as discussed, 1vparty encounters will tend to favor the party, not becuase the system has a PC bias, but because the system has an action economy bias. obviously, its basically unavoidable, sometimes you just can't roll above a 5 and your PC's can't roll below a 20. There are ways to mitigate that, but yeah, it does happens sometimes. but if that isn't what happened, if both sides were rolling a healthy mix of high and low, and the BB still got crushed, then i'd suggest that the problem is at encounter design level, not system level.

On the flip side, just using more / stronger monsters feels weird. If every dungeon has a CR20 dragon in it, dragons stop feeling special, and it makes no sense for every town to have a level 14 town arch-mage to reign in the PCs. i agree that in some scenarios it feels weird to add extra creatures to an encounter. but, as discussed, 1vparty encounters favor the party. this can be mitigated via things like legendary actions and resistances. But it can also be mitigated by playing up the danger aspect. take that death knight you mentioned earlier. idk what exactly happened in that fight, but a death knights multiattack has 3 attacks, at a +11 that do 28 damge per hit. thats' enough to one-shot many level 7 PC's. even if one of the 3 attacks miss. it has a 1/day attack with the area of fireball that does 70 damage. again, enough to 1 shot most 7th level PC's. so while defensively it only boasts 180hp it can absolutely nuke a PC. things like that can be great for panicking your players. making them thing think they're in real danger,

I was had a 3E DM who had an orcish / drow army where every single member of it was in the high teens, or Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal having level 13 fighters as literal quarry slaves, or the City of Union in the ELH having level 30 beat cops.

It's just looks silly.

Yeah, it would just be nice if I had some objective standard I could shoot for. I have a reputation as a "killer DM" both in person and on the forums, but when I read / listen to APs, I always see far more dead and defeated PCs than I do at my own table. you can only have a standard like that, per table. every group is different.

As for "100% optimally", my games almost always have optional side objectives or scales for how well the players do. The problem is that my players value wealth and pride above anything else, and so they expect 100% success rate but don't want to put in more than the minimum effort for it.

They refuse to talk to one another or stick to any plans they do make, refuse to buy or use consumables, and refuse to scout or otherwise use information gathering abilities, yeah this just loops back to the beginning. it sounds like a player/DM expectations mismatch...not everyone wants to play fully immersed in their character.

Witty Username

2023-06-24, 12:30 AM

If things are too easy, the world looks like a joke. NPCs can't grasp simple tactics and should have been wiped out years ago, apex predators have stats low enough that they would be killed by their prey, and monsters that terrorize an entire region but would be killed by any random militia at the table.

Given that this this conversation started with "reteat before you die" as an example of bad tactics this feels like a weird claim.

I personally think that encounters should vary in difficulty, and encounters do no need to always provide challenge, they can set mood, create roleplay space, etc. Tactics is part of that, smart tactical zombies may be more challenging but it doesn't feel the same. That and size can balance the tactics, bad tactics but two dozen zombies vs 3-4 well coordinated hobgoblins, both of these could definitely be challenges in the traditional sense.

Chronos

2023-06-24, 06:45 AM

A fight so easy that they can't lose and a fight so hard that they can't win are both boring, but the too-hard fight is much worse than the too-easy fight. If you make a fight too easy and it ends up boring, then you can just make the next one harder (and probably have some insight into precisely how you need to make it harder). If the fight is too hard, though, you end up with death or other serious and tough-to-fix consequences for the characters, that may well mean that there is no "next fight" to fix it on.

Talakeal

2023-06-24, 11:13 AM

Given that this this conversation started with "reteat before you die" as an example of bad tactics this feels like a weird claim.

I personally think that encounters should vary in difficulty, and encounters do no need to always provide challenge, they can set mood, create roleplay space, etc. Tactics is part of that, smart tactical zombies may be more challenging but it doesn't feel the same. That and size can balance the tactics, bad tactics but two dozen zombies vs 3-4 well coordinated hobgoblins, both of these could definitely be challenges in the traditional sense.

Its smart tactics if you want to survive, but bad tactics if you want to win the fight; and given that PCs tend to never take prisoners and hunt down their foes it doesn't really accomplish the former either.

From a game balance perspective though, it absolutely makes the combats a cake-walk when one side (the PCs) usually fights to the bitter end and the other side retreats (and usually gets cut down as they flee) at the first sign of trouble.

Easy e

2023-06-27, 03:15 PM

Sometimes, I wonder why people play D&D and not Advanced Squad Leader.

I think they would get more of what they are looking for from Advanced Squad Leader.

sithlordnergal

2023-06-27, 03:51 PM

I use the following questions for choosing targets:

1) Has a PC done something to paint a target on themselves, such as massive damage, a debilitating spell, or a powerful buff?

if Yes: Target that PC

If No: Move to Question 2

2) Is this the only available target within reach/range?

if Yes: Target that PC

if No: Move to Question 3

3) Has a PC done something minor to annoy the NPC, such as minor taunting?

if Yes: Target that PC

if No: Assign each PC a number, and roll a dice to see who gets hit

Demonslayer666

2023-06-28, 10:02 AM

I rarely attack the party based on AC. Maybe with an assassin sniping from afar. When the party is approached, the opponents will engage whoever is in front. Ambushes will attack from the rear or sides, so depending on the marching order, it may get a lower AC character.

Only smart opponents will specifically target PCs. In my setting, adventuring parties are very rare, so low levels mooks are not familiar with all the classes and how they can work together.

Lunali

2023-06-28, 10:47 PM

For me, 90% of the time I go for the person that's easiest to attack. While people are intelligent and can make good decisions about targeting priorities, it takes real discipline to not pay attention to the guy hitting you in the face.

Occasionally there will be an enemy that manages to stay at range to actually think about things or someone with the training necessary to make proper decisions in combat, but most of the time, the creatures attack the people that are convenient.

It's similar to my approach to enemies raising an alarm. Sometimes someone will be smart enough to blow a horn or ring a bell to tell everyone what's up, but usually only enemies in the nearest room or two will hear anything.

Unoriginal

2023-06-29, 09:07 PM

For me, 90% of the time I go for the person that's easiest to attack. While people are intelligent and can make good decisions about targeting priorities, it takes real discipline to not pay attention to the guy hitting you in the face.

That's contradictory, though. "Easiest to attack" doesn't mean "the one currently hitting you in the face".

The Rogue in melee who failed to hit you with their sneak attack is likely an easier target compared to the plate-armor-wearing sword-and-shield Fighter who hit you once last turn, for example.

Witty Username

2023-06-29, 10:28 PM

While I agree iritation is as good a decision maker as any, I have some notes that it will vary by monster.
Take an Orc vs an Ogre, these have very different takes on how threatening a blade is.
Also is their anything that is of particular concern.
A mage dispelling the control of a mind flayer is probably getting whatever reprisal the mind flayer can muster.
Goblins will attack anyone sniffing out their hiding spots effectively.
A mummy will hate on anyone using fire.
A hobgoblin will start with the elf, because just look at them, ick.

Lunali

2023-06-30, 05:56 AM

That's contradictory, though. "Easiest to attack" doesn't mean "the one currently hitting you in the face".

The Rogue in melee who failed to hit you with their sneak attack is likely an easier target compared to the plate-armor-wearing sword-and-shield Fighter who hit you once last turn, for example.

Both are likely in melee range making them significantly easier to attack than the mage throwing fire. Easiest to attack doesn't mean easiest to hit, so in this case it would tend towards the fighter unless they had particular beef with the rogue.

JackPhoenix

2023-06-30, 02:37 PM

Both are likely in melee range making them significantly easier to attack than the mage throwing fire. Easiest to attack doesn't mean easiest to hit, so in this case it would tend towards the fighter unless they had particular beef with the rogue.

How is the fighter easier to attack than the rogue? If both are in reach, but one is wearing heavy armor and using a shield, and the other isn't, I have no idea who in their right mind would consider the armored one an easier target.

NecessaryWeevil

2023-07-01, 02:15 AM

How is the fighter easier to attack than the rogue? If both are in reach, but one is wearing heavy armor and using a shield, and the other isn't, I have no idea who in their right mind would consider the armored one an easier target.

I believe they are saying that both are equally easy to attack in the sense of both being within reach, and that once that is evaluated, many antagonists will default to targeting the one attacking them, who in this hypothetical situation, is the fighter.

Kish

2023-07-02, 07:47 AM

As Lunali explicitly said: "Easiest to attack doesn't mean easiest to hit."

From any perspective but a purely de-immersed player tactical one, I would concur that "ignore the guy directly in front of you who just stabbed you with a sword, turn to face the other guy who just swung at you with a dagger from behind and missed" would be downright counterintuitive.

JackPhoenix

2023-07-02, 11:31 AM

As Lunali explicitly said: "Easiest to attack doesn't mean easiest to hit."

No, but there aren't any other factors in play in . The wizard standing at a distance may be easier to hit, but he's not easiest to attack if you have to move to him. The fighter and the rogue are equally easy to attack as far as positioning is concerned, but the fighter is obviously harder target.

From any perspective but a purely de-immersed player tactical one, I would concur that "ignore the guy directly in front of you who just stabbed you with a sword, turn to face the other guy who just swung at you with a dagger from behind and missed" would be downright counterintuitive.

Ah, yes, "Focus on the harder-to-dispatch foe so you may spend more time being surrounded and give the easier target more opportunities to stab you in the back." So much better. Such immersive behavior.

Unoriginal

2023-07-02, 12:01 PM

Focusing on dispatching the well-protected foe rather than the backstabber can make sense, tactically and personally.

On the tactical level, it depends who the one making the choice thinks is the most immediate threat.

truemane

2023-07-02, 12:24 PM

I try not to think too hard about it. If there's an 'obvious' choice I go with that. Otherwise I roll randomly. Aside from not wanting to slow things down, I have a lot more information than both the players and the monsters (not to mention control over all time and space), so I try not to think too hard about tactics.

DomesticHausCat

2023-07-02, 12:57 PM

It really depends on the situation for me. Typically they attack the ones closest to them. And I will adapt their style based on their intelligence and tactics. However if a big hit lands their way they will switch targets and attack the heavy hitter for revenge.

Lunali

2023-07-03, 06:21 AM

Ah, yes, "Focus on the harder-to-dispatch foe so you may spend more time being surrounded and give the easier target more opportunities to stab you in the back." So much better. Such immersive behavior.

As a rule, people don't think in combat. This is even more true for creatures that don't think in general. Unless the NPC has significant training, they're likely to attack the target that just hit them. For my own games, that generally means that unless the NPC fights professionally, they fight on reflex.

For example, soldiers, adventurers, and devils would make actual tactical decisions, town guards, bandits, demons, and animals do not. Town guards and bandits I put in the reflex fighters because they typically don't train or only train a few weeks a year, at least in my worlds.

JackPhoenix

2023-07-03, 10:22 AM

As a rule, people don't think in combat. This is even more true for creatures that don't think in general. Unless the NPC has significant training, they're likely to attack the target that just hit them. For my own games, that generally means that unless the NPC fights professionally, they fight on reflex.

For example, soldiers, adventurers, and devils would make actual tactical decisions, town guards, bandits, demons, and animals do not. Town guards and bandits I put in the reflex fighters because they typically don't train or only train a few weeks a year, at least in my worlds.

You don't need to have much training to not be a mindless automaton. People DO think in combat, nobody fights entirely on instinct, unless they are drugged or otherwise mentally impaired.

Talakeal

2023-07-03, 12:47 PM

False God

2023-07-03, 01:08 PM

I have noticed kind of a weird double standard with player expectations; they expect the monsters to be really dumb tactically, but rarely impose such limitations on themselves.

For example, the online CR calculator someone linked here a couple weeks ago runs on the assumption that the players always attack the most vulnerable monster but the monsters always attack the least vulnerable PC.

I think that it's largely a framing issue. Historically D&D is about going into dungeons and fighting "monsters", by definition something "not human" and the presentation of monsters throughout many forms of media and games has been stupid, brutish, non-tactical. Many old dungeons were set up on random encounters, and generating an enemy randomly from a list will always result in a much less capable enemy than one that was prepared in advance.

If you get out of the D&D circles and present players with things that are not overtly "monsters" I find that players drop the expectation that the enemy shouldn't be tactical fairly quickly. Noone expects modern mercenaries, guerillas or soldiers to "fight stupid".

Chronos

2023-07-04, 07:50 AM

I think it's fair to say that creatures that fight a lot will be better at tactics than creatures who fight only seldom. And PCs fall pretty squarely into the category of creatures who fight a lot. Their enemies, though, may or may not fight a lot. So, yes, sometimes the PCs being tactical and their enemies being on autopilot might be reasonable. But not always.

Unoriginal

2023-07-04, 08:04 AM

As a rule, people don't think in combat.

That is not accurate.

People do think in combat. Thinking in a way that don't hinder you is the hard part.

For example, the online CR calculator someone linked here a couple weeks ago runs on the assumption that the players always attack the most vulnerable monster but the monsters always attack the least vulnerable PC.

Tactics have no impact on CR, nor are who is the targets. I have no idea what this calculator was calculating, but it wasn't CR.

Talakeal

2023-07-04, 09:46 AM

I had a situation this weekend that seems relevant to this thread.

The PCs got themselves stuck between two groups of enemies, neither of whom they felt like they could take in a straight fight, and decided to lead one group into the other and get them to start fighting each other.

I was picturing a big, messy, three-way battle.

The players were planning on sitting back and letting them kill each other, siding with the group that seemed to be losing, and then turning on them as the fight was winding down and they were at low strength.

A tried to keep it chaotic and basically have half the enemies attacking the PCs and half of them attacking the other group of monsters in any given round, and the players complained that it wasn't fair because the monsters should be focusing on the more obvious threat at the moment rather than long term survival (or meta-game concerns about fun or challenge).

Tactics have no impact on CR, nor are who is the targets. I have no idea what this calculator was calculating, but it wasn't CR.

Sort of, yeah. Basically his thesis is that the CR system is broken as written and he is attempting to come up with a more objective system using mathematical analysis and computer simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8FNVkFuhXI

kazaryu

2023-07-04, 10:56 AM

Tactics have no impact on CR, nor are who is the targets. I have no idea what this calculator was calculating, but it wasn't CR. the confusion you're having is that the person that was cited is using the term 'CR' as a blanket term for 'encounter difficulty calculation'. and even more specifically, they built an encounter difficulty calculator that runs based on simulating combats between the inputted PCs and monsters. and, obviously, in order to do that tactics had to be considered/created for the combatants.

I had a situation this weekend that seems relevant to this thread.

The PCs got themselves stuck between two groups of enemies, neither of whom they felt like they could take in a straight fight, and decided to lead one group into the other and get them to start fighting each other.

I was picturing a big, messy, three-way battle.

The players were planning on sitting back and letting them kill each other, siding with the group that seemed to be losing, and then turning on them as the fight was winding down and they were at low strength.

A tried to keep it chaotic and basically have half the enemies attacking the PCs and half of them attacking the other group of monsters in any given round, and the players complained that it wasn't fair because the monsters should be focusing on the more obvious threat at the moment rather than long term survival (or meta-game concerns about fun or challenge). having not been there i can't speak with much authority on how things actually shook down. however, as a general rule, i think its generally a bad idea to directly circumvent when players do something clever to make things easier. Them having fun because their plan succeeded trumps them having fun because an encounter was difficult.

part of this is, when the players explain a plan to me, if its not obvious what they're trying to accomplish i directly ask them. so for example if a player tells me 'i say 'im gonna kill your whole tribe' and they seem to want something out of it. before i call for the roll, i'll ask something like 'so you're trying to intimidate, but what is it you're trying to intimidate them into doing'. and if its unrealistic, i address it then. but once i let them make the roll, im leaving myself open to possibility of them succeeding at their stated goal.

But another part is just...being ready to have your encounters circumvented. like, in that scenario so long as the PC's weren't involved i may have made a couple of rolls to get an idea as to how the fight between the 2 outside groups played out up to the point of the PC's jumping in.

recently my party was gearing up for a fight against an efreeti (fire djinn). It had been running a slave ring through some mortals on the material plane. so entrenched was the group that they even had a permanent portal set up. the players took care of the organization on the material side of things, but needed to go after the efreeti itself, lest it simply re-establish. I was picturing a massive fight in the efreetis throne room where its summoning elementals, various environmental effects as lair actions, the whole she-bang. But the players got the idea of simply summoning it, pull it away from its lair. and after some good ability checks, they were able to learn its name and successfully pull off the summoning. fighting it on the material instead of the plane of fire. made the fight much easier on them. But i don't resent them, they earned it.

Sort of, yeah. Basically his thesis is that the CR system is broken as written and he is attempting to come up with a more objective system using mathematical analysis and computer simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8FNVkFuhXI do keep in mind that his system doesn't assume the tactics you referred to earlier. instead those are simply the default assumptions. were you to use the simulator yourself, you can actually change them.

Talakeal

2023-07-04, 11:18 AM

having not been there i can't speak with much authority on how things actually shook down. however, as a general rule, i think its generally a bad idea to directly circumvent when players do something clever to make things easier. Them having fun because their plan succeeded trumps them having fun because an encounter was difficult.

part of this is, when the players explain a plan to me, if its not obvious what they're trying to accomplish i directly ask them. so for example if a player tells me 'i say 'im gonna kill your whole tribe' and they seem to want something out of it. before i call for the roll, i'll ask something like 'so you're trying to intimidate, but what is it you're trying to intimidate them into doing'. and if its unrealistic, i address it then. but once i let them make the roll, im leaving myself open to possibility of them succeeding at their stated goal.

But another part is just...being ready to have your encounters circumvented. like, in that scenario so long as the PC's weren't involved i may have made a couple of rolls to get an idea as to how the fight between the 2 outside groups played out up to the point of the PC's jumping in.

recently my party was gearing up for a fight against an efreeti (fire djinn). It had been running a slave ring through some mortals on the material plane. so entrenched was the group that they even had a permanent portal set up. the players took care of the organization on the material side of things, but needed to go after the efreeti itself, lest it simply re-establish. I was picturing a massive fight in the efreetis throne room where its summoning elementals, various environmental effects as lair actions, the whole she-bang. But the players got the idea of simply summoning it, pull it away from its lair. and after some good ability checks, they were able to learn its name and successfully pull off the summoning. fighting it on the material instead of the plane of fire. made the fight much easier on them. But i don't resent them, they earned it.

My thought was that a big chaotic three way battle was simply more fun than the PCs sitting in the corner while I roll dice against myself, challenge be damned.

Now, if the players had actually gone to the effort of making an alliance with one of the sides (and then betraying them later) I feel like it would have played out a lot closer to what they had in mind, but as was they simply threw open the doors between the monster's lairs and ran from one to the other, which, imo, is a far cry from going to the effort of summoning a genie out of his lair in your example.

do keep in mind that his system doesn't assume the tactics you referred to earlier. instead those are simply the default assumptions. were you to use the simulator yourself, you can actually change them.

Good to know, I didn't get that in depth with it.

Its still odd that the default works one way for the PCs and the opposite way for the NPCs though.

Unoriginal

2023-07-04, 03:04 PM

recently my party was gearing up for a fight against an efreeti (fire djinn). It had been running a slave ring through some mortals on the material plane. so entrenched was the group that they even had a permanent portal set up. the players took care of the organization on the material side of things, but needed to go after the efreeti itself, lest it simply re-establish. I was picturing a massive fight in the efreetis throne room where its summoning elementals, various environmental effects as lair actions, the whole she-bang. But the players got the idea of simply summoning it, pull it away from its lair. and after some good ability checks, they were able to learn its name and successfully pull off the summoning. fighting it on the material instead of the plane of fire. made the fight much easier on them.

Worth noting that most summoning methods result in the summoned creature suffering no harm if they die on the material plane and just popping back home.

While great if you have the power to do it, the old "summon and kill" is much more likely to backfire unless they checked the summoning magic carefully.

kazaryu

2023-07-04, 05:42 PM

My thought was that a big chaotic three way battle was simply more fun than the PCs sitting in the corner while I roll dice against myself, challenge be damned.

Now, if the players had actually gone to the effort of making an alliance with one of the sides (and then betraying them later) I feel like it would have played out a lot closer to what they had in mind, but as was they simply threw open the doors between the monster's lairs and ran from one to the other, which, imo, is a far cry from going to the effort of summoning a genie out of his lair in your example.
right, this is where my disclaimer of 'i wasn't there, so idk the full story' comes in. i do still think its worth noting that unless the players went out of their way to make themselves a threat to each party, its not unreasonable for them to expect the other groups to fight each other. but yeah i definitely wouldn't run a full combat if the PC's weren't involved. i might roll a couple of dice to randomly decide how the fight plays out, and then just describe the fight occurring and the lead up to the PC"s joining in. but again, without knowing precisely what was said at the table, any advice is going to be limited to guesswork.

Good to know, I didn't get that in depth with it.

Its still odd that the default works one way for the PCs and the opposite way for the NPCs though. well the reason for that is based on what the creator thought was the most common strategy. i.e. focus fire one enemy, and as the PC's themselves take damage retreat to somewhere where they won't.

Worth noting that most summoning methods result in the summoned creature suffering no harm if they die on the material plane and just popping back home.

While great if you have the power to do it, the old "summon and kill" is much more likely to backfire unless they checked the summoning magic carefully.
oh no they knew that summoning it to the material wouldn't destroy him permanently. I told them as much when they brought up the possibility of summoning him like that. However, i also ruled that he wouldn't just...pop back to his lair at full power. it would take him time to fully regenerate. so following that strategy meant that he was significantly weaker when they did make it to his palace for the final showdown. in fact, the final showdown wasn't really the climax, instead i ran the infiltration of the palace and the escape from it as a skill challenge, and those were the climax. the final fight with the efreeti was more of a pause between those 2 events

edit: to be clear they were also only lvl 8 at the time, and none of them had an elemental summoning spell. the way it shook down was that during the previous night the guy in charge of the camp that they were assaulting ran off when it became clear that the fight was a losing one. 1 round after he disappeared they heard him shouting rhythmically. a successful check revealed that it was clear that he was entreating their 'god' (the efreeti) for aid. at which point i started a countdown. chasing after the boss they found that he'd set up a ritual area right in front of the portal and was chanting towards it. they managed to interrupt the ritual and mop up the camp.

fast forward to the next morning they're discussing what to do, and one of the players, using that as inspiration, suggested doing something similar to summon him out. Which i allowed the possibility of. Explaining the them that how it would work is that an NPC would create a ward (ritual circle type thing) that would allow them to combine their magical effort. Then each player could expend a single spell slot on the effort, and one player would make a check using the total spell levels expended as the bonus (with proficiency). on a success they could temporarily subvert the permanent gate spell, and invoke its ability to summon a specific creature whos name you knew.