Do you have any other methods for deciding who your monsters will target? Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK at checkout to save 12% off of your order! www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike
Yeah the only right way to do it to my experience use the most simplest yet logical way: let them attack logically distributing the enemies equally based on the closer enemy if in melee (the enemies minimize on being rounded up) and when uncertain from multiple target roll a dice, if it's ranged just roll a dice. It should be on the base rules and can't live without it, since we implemented it we couldn't play without using it, it's truly the easiest way to improve combat. I know a lot of people think really differently about it, just try it.
This is the Math! This is the Monster Math! The Monster Math! Along the graveyard path! This is the Math! Work out NPC wrath! This is the Math! Supergeek Monster Math!
This was too good not to try building on, so please allow me to "yes and" you with… I was encounter planning late one night When my eyes beheld a helpful sight From the depths of UA-cam did Supergeek rise And suddenly, to my surprise… (He taught me math!) He taught me monster math. (The monster math!) Learning which skulls to bash. (NPC wrath!) It makes a fun bloodbath (Deep aftermath!) When I do monster math. From my home office by the bathroom door, To the dining room where I spill blood and lore, I plot and scheme my combat plan Till the players come to see firsthand… (They get the math!) They get the monster math. (The monster math!) It's a tabletop smash! (They dig the math!) They caught on in a flash. (The monster math!) To the monster math.
I know one thing I always do is explain out loud my monster's reasoning for it's actions to my players, if any of the players feel that reasoning is not sensible for that monster they tell me and I am sometimes willing to change up tactics. If the players feel like I'm treating them fairly and not metagaming they accept my decisions most of the time. Then you just use some basic logic to make those decisions. "the giant crocodile took a big hit from the barbarian which has made it think twice about this fight, however it's hungry and the rogue is heavily wounded on the edge of the lake so it's going to make an attack to grapple the rogue and then run away with it's meal." Even though that's attacking the weakest character, it's perfectly sensible for a predator that's hungry and looking for an easy meal.
I really like using the "who attacked it last" type questions to mislead my players on how I determine my attack targets. "Who attacked it last" vs "who landed the last hit" vs "who attacked it the most" vs "who has done the most damage to it" can all feel like the same question, but with multiple different answers, letting you 'chose' which player you're attacking, with the decision feeling justified to the players. You also typically only ask this once or twice an encounter and let the players assume the inbetween.
despite having been a dm for many years, I still found this video extremely insightful. my gut reaction was "your example is too heartless to be just math". I'm glad that was the actual twist in the end.
I rejigger 'biggest threat' question into "did someone use an ability that would make them less likely to be targeted or more likely to be targeted." Because a lot of times yes, the wizard or rogue did a TON of damage, but the barbarians and Paladins have abilities that specifically make enemies 'want' to target them but it is only hinted at. When a Barbarian uses reckless attack and gives their enemies Advantage, I immediately attack them. The moment they don't use reckless attack, I make sure to state 'since the orcs weren't able to find an opening in the Barbarian's defense, they decided to attack someone else.' Likewise, Paladins and Fighters have a lot of 'enemies who attack nearby allies instead of you do so at Disadvantage.' I will usually have the first attack be at Disadvantage, and if the enemy is intelligent at all (6-14 int or wis) change to the person with the ability. This usually means the tank gets to actually tank even though they might not be the biggest threat (sometimes they don't even look the most intimidating depending on your party make up).
Proximity answers most of those questions for me, but a lot of your stuff is useful. In my system, and even when I ran D & D, being down is common but being dead is rare, as long as your side held the field and you get healing. So continuing to do damage to a downed foe would be extremely nasty. But it's impractical. The people on their feet are much more dangerous to you. I think I did it once. The Troll had a _personal_ reason, the dude had killed her baby. The player did not resent this. Still playing with us when he passed away forty years later. "So, of course, I killed her."
I've also had battles where an adversary had a grudge or affinity for one hero. One may not attack his preferred hero unless that hero forces he hand. Another might target the hero who has become his rival and leave his minions to do crowd control and stop the others from interrupting his duel. Historical battle tactics are another place to look. For example I frequently have orcs use Zulu "bull horns" inspired battle tactics against the heroes (unless playing with players who know that I do that).
Something I'll do when I'm dealing with the issue brought up @14:13 is have the monster (especially if it is high CR for the fight) engage in some cinematic brawling. In movies, the monsters are always pausing to roar in people's faces, or like throwing them at walls, or just away, instead of biting their heads off. It makes little sense, but it's a good way to have the protagonist suffer a setback, without dying. I do the same thing with the monsters in some fights. You have them toss around the PC's, it does way less damage, but it looks dramatic, and the guy who is having a bad night of rolls doesn't get stomped into the ground, but gets a "moment" in the scene.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I've only run non-sentient beasts so far, so they attack whoever hurt them last, but this is great to remember for the future when I may have sentient antagonists!
My players are brand new to DnD (there's only 2 of them in the party) and in their first big combat encounter I had the monsters focus on the frontliner to begin with, but once he got really low hp (literally 1) I had the ranged enemies focus on the druid in the back who was shooting arrows while the big guy still went for the frontliner. I found this made the encounter feel cinematic, intense and fair. They both told me they enjoyed that combat encounter and I might keep that philosophy in future encounters
I start by reading the monsters lore, hobgoblins, orcs, and trolls are all examples of monsters that say specific parameters for enemy targeting. Then I go based on either intelligence or who attacked and or dealt the most damage to the enemy last
Great video, as always. I love how I'm constantly humbled by being reminded that the fundamentals are always the most useful tools when running a TTRPG. These sorts of video topics are great regardless of your level of experience.
1. Whom has ticked off the intelligent monster? Did Bob insult the vampire’s mom the session before? Bob is going to be lunch. 2. Is the person a newby to Adventure League or the group.
Great video. I used to get nervous that my players would judge me if i didn't play the villains optimally. But I've found that they rarely notice, or if they do, they assume there's a reason for it. The only time i get pushback is if my decision is detrimental to them. So they don't normally complain if, for instance, I don't focus fire.
Thrse are the exact questions I consider when I DM. I aim for fun at the table, and I know that my newer group will be having enough issues learning the system. So much so, that I've made a Metropolitan City thats basically modern, but with DnD flair. It is a college city that teaches adventuring skills to gather resources for the city. A sort of Hogwarts meets Stargate vibe, to snapshot various things to teach my players. 'Merchant needs herbs for potions' 'skills test games at a festival' 'platformer exploration of a cave'. College pays adventurers, players have an easier time adjusting to the rules.
I like to ask myself questions and make little observations from the perspective of my monsters out loud, especially when ymthings are getting a bit tense. To me, at least, it feels like it takes a bit of the 'bad tension' out of the picture where a player might think they're being targeted or ignored unfairly
With respect, I give Mike the benefit of the doubt knowing he has obviously grown as a DM, but for any new DMs it should probably be mentioned that his example is problematic. Typically encounters shouldn't be designed to intentionally target and kill a character to "make your plot personal", this is the height of adversarial DM behavior. A story beat can be very important, but Mike clearly has intimate knowledge of his players and knew this would be ok, there are better ways to invest players in your plot. (I'm sure this could be, or already is the topic of another video?)
I always pull back from being a bastard in my combats. I think my players are having fun, but besides accidentally killing two characters (both the same player... Whoops) I just don't do that kind of thing. But I try to put in other goals within the combats. They are encounters, after all. My question though would be this: I also really fail at *storytelling* within combat. Getting my boss to do his villain-splaining and generally getting across lore and motivations and clues throughout the combat itself. Do you have any tips on how to run the villain "dramatically" and getting across to your players all the bits of info that should come out (like who hired the assassins, where the trigger for the bomb is, or how to stop the giant sky portal). Thanks!!
I’m reminded of a tactic I sometimes employ. Provoking aggro. Mechanically? There really isn’t a way to do this. I mean, I think there is single thing Paladin’s have that can maybe do this in some situations, but don’t play that class. However, tactically, I might try and provoke aggro as a tactic by building up some role play with the enemy npc that makes it reasonable for them to target me. I did this tactic with two characters (as I usually try to not do it as I usually fight as an archer). One character did this with the bbeg. He had decided he hated the bbeg and did a ton of stuff for months that specifically were designed to piss her off. When the confrontation came he set up rope trick and kept teasing her mid battle, even when he missed a shot, to get her attention on him as much as possible. At one point she manages to get up into rope trick and he, with a wild grin, sets off some beads on the necklace of fireballs he had prepared. Kinda kamikaze but I had calculated the max damage and knew that even if he failed the dex save that he would make it out alive. After that it was easy to just bonus action disengage and regroup elsewhere for him to draw her too. Yes he really pissed her off. It was a hilarious tactic to me to try that but it was all or nothing since it was the final fight. Anyway, not my only fight I did provoke aggro via roleplay. In another I had my character do this to draw an enemy away from my other party members who were unconscious. I was using an astral elf so I had starlight step. What I did was use free action to provoke the enemy to come after me and draw them away from the party members, then used starlight step to get as close as I could and covered the rest of the distance with my movement, healed one member and left them a potion, then returned to battle, interposing myself between our enemy and my party. The tactic worked as my party member stabilized and healed the other while I distracted the beast and eventually took it down. It was a risk that paid off for me but would not have worked if my dm had not understood I was pulling aggro on purpose. They rewarded my roleplay by playing into it and it ended up saving the entire party who was majorly at risk of mostly dying at that point. Not that this was the first time I pulled this tactic with this character. He has far less self preservation and a huge thing about protecting those he cares for that it makes sense for him to pull this tactic more often than I might use for other characters of similar builds. He did this tactic of drawing aggro with two other battles previously. He has since pulled back some since we got a better frontliner (which was a gap my character was filling in) but he still has used it somewhat to prevent further attacks on party members. Given he is an archer this means his hp pool is left untouched most of the battle if he plays his role correctly. This means he has the leeway and the distance to risk drawing the enemy’s attacks onto himself as he can soak it and is usually positioned enough away from the party that they can have a breather. Of course, like I said, this character has starlight step so he can sometimes hop skip his way out of these issues too. Not that he always does if it will bring the attention back to the party. Still, this is a tactic I use sparingly. I am glad the dms I play with will reward me roleplaying in such a way to draw aggro but it isn’t a common tactic I use and this is ok with me. I try only to use it to assist the party, not be a hero or cool. If I played a more frontliner I believe I would have less fun with this tactic as it would come off more like that image. But anyway, this is how I play and try to angle for the dm to have the enemies move a certain way. (Oh and as for the months long provocation, for context, my character was fighting a winter goddess so he left fabric flowers of snowdrops at all her places of worship he found and even tied a few to his arrows which he shot at her during that final showdown. She got freaking pissed when she realized she was face to face with him for the first time. At some point he did stick his tongue at her and I had him laughing t her nearly the entire battle, even when she hit him with an attack because he was just that pleased with being able to get under her skin. He had gone into the battle knowing it was either he wins or dies trying and he had already done all in his power to lean things in his favor for winning. In the end, the party used their final ace and that’s when I had him stop laughing at her, and say, “it’s over.” And take off on his serpentine owl figurine. The other party member did too and then they dropped their final ace on her which took her out. Oh and yes he left her one last flower, this time a lily, when he left. He intended to completely destroy her worship too so he was making strides at entirely wiping out her influence in the region if not her entire ability to exist. He even befriended an ancient dragon of the region who agreed to pass on his advice to cease the goddess’s worship in the region even long after he was gone. It was a heartfelt moment for my character who nearly cried because all he had worked up to was finally complete with that promise. He had done all he could, even provoking attention he would have preferred not be on him, he has social anxiety actually, and channeling it towards his goal of wiping her out. With this, this was the last of what was in his power to do. So he kinda cried on the dragon friend and gifted her a legendary level potion as thanks for it. Dragon let him cry on her some more. He still stops in to visit her too. He is an elf so he will possibly live a very long time and the friendship will too, but yeah, dragon will still out live him. Anyway, sorry, I just really loved that story and that campaign wrapped up recently and so my mind is still on the prologue there).
I think that Wolves or animals are still a step up from weak elementals, zombies and skeleton. The latter creatures act on feebleminded instinct, attacking foe but not friend in the simplest way possible. Animals have the intellect to see danger and know when to run or for Wolves or similar creatures, they also have the ability to form pacts or groups to try and get sneak attacks on the pc's as well. But that is just a small hint, video is still great.
As a tie breaker when multiple PC's are the same distance, for low intelligence creatures, I have them go after who did the most damage to them since their last turn. Just hitting someone isn't necessarily going to goad it if it didn't so much damage. Damage definitely get attention. If they are intelligent, then it would usually go to who seems the most vulnerable. I have made situational decisions that don't follow that, like a troll getting hit by fire or acid. Even if it wasn't the most damage, that would definitely be more threatening.
The rough model I follow is picking one of three that the enemy falls into, tactical (humanoids/intelligent enemies), primal (animals/monsters), and mindless (lesser undead/plants). Intelligent enemies focus on the biggest threat/biggest party benefactor, primal enemies focus on the least threatening they can knock out and drag away to eat, mindless just go whack whack against the nearest target.
This is great! I pretty much use all these tactics myself, but I wouldn't have been able to lay it all out as well as you did. Got myself a new vid to send to my new-DM friends!
This is EXACTLY what I do and I've never had an issue with it. In fact, the only dice I openly roll in front of my players are the dice I roll when I am "evens/odds" or "1-3" deciding which player will be attacked in certain scenarios. My higher level party has a cavalier tank and, often, less intelligent enemies will go for her horse instead of her because "big horse is tasty target" even though I know they don't have a chance in hell (short of a nat 20) of hitting the horse. Those enemies on switch to her once they realize they can't really get at the horse after a bit. Intelligent foes will just flat out ignore the horse practically no matter what because they know the rider is the problem. If a squishy jumps in front, they know I will not save them from their dumb moment but they also know they likely won't be chased past that front line if they retreat behind the cavalier.
Seconding "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" by Keith Amman, great resource, but if you want something a little easier: Some monsters (such as Orcs) go for the strongest-looking target. Some monsters (such as Goblins) go for the weakest-looking target. Some monsters (such as Crocodiles) go for the closest target. Some monsters (such as Beholders) go for a random target. Pick whichever makes sense. If you aren't sure, pick one at random. I have similar reasoning for when a monster might run away, which also might depend on who their leader is and how close they are.
Your input is really helpful. Usually I create encounters with the narrative in mind, but not how the actions will tackle (at least not as deep as making all the questions you shared). So far my players they had fun, so maybe I've done some of the questions subconsciously.
With dumb monsters, I generally attack the closest player, but sometimes I go after the most recent attacker or the attacker who hit the hardest. I don’t think about it too long and just go with my first instinct… like a dumb monster would. It also makes combat go faster.
I usually tell the players as I'm controlling the monster why it's attacking whom. It might be a form of light metagaming, but it makes the encounter feel fair. If the monster is a smart and efficient enemy, the players will know that the monster reasoned that taking the healer out first would be the smarter play. It allows you to focus fire on a single player without it feeling unfair. This gives them counterplay options which are nice. Example: the paladin tossing a Sanctuary towards the cleric healer, someone throwing a fog cloud, something like that. Otherwise, in my experience players just unload their biggest DPS stuff and pray to outdamage the encounter
This reminds me of my ladt Wednesday gsme where the villain should if rained down elements to the majority of the party, but one player thst was the target of her vengeance got into optimal movement range and so she broke off her AOE assault to fiercely melee the sole player. Giving into her hate gave the rest of the party a moment to reposition and attack. Basically playing suboptimal but in character as a npc in combat can add depth to the situation.
I like your monster AI formula but I think it would be better if, when there is a tie in distance, the monster goes towards the group with the most hit points instead of the biggest group. This makes it so that tanks can still feel like they're tanking and that everyone feels like they are at risk in a combat.
both the parties I run for have decided to adopt what I call the haste meta, where in every combat the sorcerer twin spells the haste spell on his allies. As such any enemy with a decent int knows that if the sorcerer is in range, try to kill the sorcerer
@@zippomage oh sure but that’s kind of a Dick move. No one wants to play a game where you just don’t get a turn because the dm has decided you are too strong.
I love tactics, for intelligent devils monsters and abberations I’ll write out what information they’ve gathered on the party to do the most logical turn
Maybe they focus on the smallest enemy because that is the one likely to be an easy meal. This is the lion and the wildebeast strategy. And when the choices are to kill the wife's character, the sister's character, the paladin, or the monk, never go for the wife or the sister.
You mentioned Intelligence in your video, but another stat that can be used for tactics is Wisdom. Wisdom can help determine a creatures fight or flight instincts, what HP thresholds it will consider retreating at or which creatures appear to be the weaker prey (A major difference here with Wisdom vs. Intelligence is that a Wolf's Wisdom likely wouldn't cause it to fear a mage as much as a barbarian). The Monsters Know What They're Doing goes into great depth with these kinds of stat analyses, as well as more niche focuses, like how a creature's type would affect those decisions. Undead wouldn't be concerned with something like survival instinct for example.
One of my rules. If the enemy is proficient in religion or has a passive perception above 17 they immediately target the cleric. If they have any spellcasting levels they can tell the difference between a magic user and a non magic user in obvious situations. (Wizard v. Fighter. Druid v. Barbarian. Monk v. Cleric)
Speaking of DMs being strategic… In my group’s most recent game, we’d set up camp in a house in an abandoned village and barricaded the doors and windows bc we knew there was a hag and some winter wolves lurking around. When said hag and winter wolves attacked, they couldn’t get to us and we decided to basically go the siege route and pick off as many as we could from safety. So…. The DM had the hag throw up an ice wall blocking any attacks we might throw, forcing at least some of us to leave the safety of the house to try and break her concentration. It was a really fun fight (save a slight rules misread that almost left most of the players unable to do anything for a whole round) in part because the DM basically matched our strategic behavior with his own tactical decisions (which a scheming hag would TOTALLY do) and created an encounter where we had to think carefully, not *just* roll dice
I found a fun workaround to some very scary creatures not hitting the players when they were down, and that was that these vicious predators had never before seen anything get back up after they had knocked it down so they would just gun straight for their next victim. Knocked two players unconscious and they both died to failed death saves, so I guess those beasties had the right of it.
I agree with something that said below that I don't care for this example because I don't love going into battle as a DM with the intention of trying to kill a player. Unless I've spoken with the player before hand about killing off their character in this way, I wouldn't do it. If they die because of poor choices or getting in over their heads or even bad luck, fine, it happens, but deciding to narratively kill a character, even if it's done in a way that 'seems' like it was just bad luck, isn't fair. Outside of that specific scenario, I generally agree with the principles here, except maybe the 'don't target your wife/spouse' one which while I understand the practical reality of it, I think if you're actively favouring certain players at the table, sooner or later it's going to be noticed, probably by the players who end up taking the bulk of your attacks as a result.
12:05 Honestly, I ask this exact question out loud for a very specific reason. To gauge how my players are feeling, and whether the additional challenge is wanted. Usually, my players will actually answer the question, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively, and more often than not I will use their answer to decide. Maybe I shouldn't do this, there's probably a bunch of psychological reasons not to, but it works for me currently.
I was DMing last night and this video is a timely release! A lot of these questions Mike gave are similar to my train of thought when I run combat encounters. My session last night was a party of four levels 4s and one level 1: an artificer, a barbarian, a wizard, a cleric/wizard, and the level 1 paladin. In the two combat encounters Ieaned towards the side of tailoring the fights to the group. I often justified my monsters' tactics with "Okay let's make the most out of your character's class features" to make the players feel rewarded for their build choices. They also had this story element that when someone was unconscious, they drag their bodies to an portal that led to a location out of the party's reach. The monsters at the end targeted those who were sustaining the party (the artificer and cleric/wizard) Though there was also a monster in the first encounter that targeted randomly amongst the party. I rolled dice publicly because that special monster really was just meant to hit anyone that was in its territory and its reach. Anyway great video!
Hey Mike, thanks for the video, I really enjoyed it. Here's a follow-up question - what advice would you give when a game master is running a monster that's more intelligent than they (the GM) are? Something like a dragon or a mind flayer has genius-level intelligence and will anticipate things that the GM doesn't have a clue about. What's the best way to portray that during combat?
My way of using mindflayers: regardless of what Action the Player do I roll a die to see if he has predicted it. If je did than there is a trap or something else awaiting them.
A lot of this resonates with me. I've actually already made an excel spreadsheet that keeps track of what I think are 2 of the most important factors (devoid of any story context): How much damage a player has done so far, and what is the max damage each player did on an attack? The former helps me decide who the monster sees as the most consistent threat, and the latter I use to decide if a monster is going to give up and run away (assuming the monster is not mindless. If the fighter cuts a goblin in half in a single strike, nearby goblins are smart enough to assume that fighter can do the same to them (they don't know it was a critical and max damage, and therefore unlikely to do that much damage again)). If I am running a particularly intelligent monster, I will add non-damage numbers to this spreadsheet: number of hit points a player heals an ally for, level of spell that was counter spelled, these are things that an intelligent monster would deem as threatening, and therefore make those characters more worthy targets.
I had an encounter where the intelligent monster went after the one that was goading it the most to fight. Got to him and downed them with a rebudle and the paladin laid on hands hand tried to get the monster to attack them. They rolled a 12 on the persuasion roll and i had the monster kill the PC he just downed instead of attacking the paladin. The monster saw the opportunity to show off his evil side
I play it differently for foes depending on the nature of the monsters. Combat can really differentiate them. Just thinking of humanoids, in 5E, hobgoblins are really organized warriors. They fight very strategically and know how to focus their fire. However, appeals to their honor may work and they might switch targets if they're hit really hard. They require effective leadership, though, so removing their leaders from the board will push them towards morale break. Orcs are savage attackers and go for the biggest, baddest appearing target. They may switch if they're hit hard but will tend to go for the nastiest foe on the board. An alternative view might be that they attack the weakest in a desire to kill... up to the DM, or indeed maybe a good way to distinguish different tribes of orcs. Big and dumb monsters like ogres might go for the last person that hits them; this goes double for mindless ones. Trolls, which tend to be quite overconfident due to their regeneration, will attack accordingly, but may try to eliminate an obvious threat. Carnivores that are purely opportunistic often attack what appears to be the easiest target and usually bug out when the going gets tough. If I'm indifferent or there's no obvious target, I tend to just roll dice, but usually there's some kind of reason.
For what it's worth, lore-wise, event he stupidest Undead should be drawn toward actively displayed divine magic. However, tactically (from personal experience), this is a really good way to have a TPK, as taking down the cleric first, even if they're not dead, is going to make it so your players aren't having fun.
I once intentionally had my bad guy not kill a PC because I didn’t want to ruin his night. After the game he told me to never do that again, if his character dies he’ll just roll up a new one.
Just found you via algorithm. This is surprisingly helpful, I've thought of a lost of these things before but a. Didn't think of the group size thing and b. Probably over estimated average intelligence a bit. I actually think going for the larger group makes total sense for a melee enemy if they're not too bright(maybe between 5 and 9 int), basically they think they're kratos or something and they're just gonna get a massive combo cleaving through hero after hero
I ask myself these questions: What's it's intelligence level? Is it the type to be goaded or to hold a grudge? Who hit it last and who has hurt it the most? Is there an opportunity to create a more impactful moment? (This could be something humorous or something dramatic.) Am I being fair? Are my actions based in reality or are they based in the reality of the game, and which is more appropriate for the moment? This is a little more nuanced, but it's also broad. But basically I'm considering this: Is the monster attacking this player because that's what the monster should do, or is it because the player was annoying me? If the monster is attacking the most realistic target, is it in the best interest of the game?
Great video! I loved this! This is the exact kind of metric I try to work out: what's my fallback metric if I don't have a particular reason in mind, and otherwise make the fun of the table the goal... With newer more easily discouraged players getting some leeway over more experienced players who can handle (or WANT) more of that harshness or randomness.
So, you're saying you did the math? You did the monster math? Intelligence is a good baseline to determine how tactical an opponent is; I would point out that a wolf is very likely to be aware of its surroundings, and would be wary of getting surrounded. Something else to keep in mind is how much does the opponent know about the PCs? Whether it's through scrying, informants, or similar means, some antagonists will have a good idea about the PCs' capabilities. This means they will have particularly effective spells prepared (if applicable), and, whenever possible, choose terrain that is far more favorable to themselves. One of your final points is also very important: what is the goal/purpose of the encounter, and, if applicable, the foes that are part of it? Great video topic, Mike.
(Still have to look through the video, but the mention of Monster A.I. made me go on a thought trip) Oddly enough, I have developed a "praxis" (not really a system, more like a practical philosophy?) similar to Mortals: Descent of the Gods. without ever knowing of its existence. For my own game engine, all enemies have a short section in their profile card that is a checklist they run in descending order (always from top to bottom) of priorities that *should* (I'm still a human being, after all xD) convey the feel for the enemy. So: check line in the list, check whether it applies or not, if it does, apply it; if it does not, go to the line below. This was made out of the necessity of writing a single player skirmish, arena-style game to play when I am commuting (as I used to commute a lot and don't have a driving license) and to side-step the natural (and understandable) tendency of a player to favour their own character over the enemies to Win The Game. A couple of examples. Kill-Tac Mercs go straight for the kill, so their list was "Does the merc hear/see combat? If so, move to the combat; if not, camp the closest chokepoint until they do. Once in combat, prioritize player characters (the lore of the game distinguishes them from NPC's) and attack other NPC's only if PC's aren't available. When in combat, cover their advance with the rifle and engage in melee as soon as possible leveraging their superior gear." Relatively easy, realtively straight-forward: Kill-Tac Mercs ain't supposed to be tactical geniuses, only really sturdy bricks thrown at your face and a way to ensure the player doesn't feel safe when looting (any EfT reference is on purpose xD). Rats, instead, are the opposite, and their Behaviour List is slightly different because it's more a series of "if" statements: "Look for loot, but physically take it only when combat is as far away from them as possible. If engaged, run for cover and hide. If a piece of loot is in an area with a firefight going on, look for other pieces of loot in safer zones. Once the backpack is full, extract." The scavengers (the Rats) are an indicator: if you see 'em, either the area is safe or they're going to one, plus loot pinhatta. Also, as long as you don't attack them or try to take their stuff, they won't give you trouble. The last example is The Outlier and is possibly my favourite. The Broken is a collective term for broken down droids and robots that somebody took from dumpsters and landfills and threw into the arena: effectively, they're zombies. Their Behaviour List is: Follow the sounds of combat, heavy equipment and explosions and attack their source until it stops. The silly thing about the Broken is that they go down in one hit, but making noise spawns them from trash cans and dumpsters scattered around the map, so clanking around in heavy armour and toting the big gerns means you *will* have to use them, if only to keep the mecha-undead at bay. And expose yourself to Kill-Tac in doing so ^^
In a oneshot I ran recently for my partner, I played an Archmage villain who ended up escaping through some pretty dastardly, but ultimately logical, tactics. The fight was set in an ancient necropolis where the Archmage had summoned a Death Knight to fight the two party members (my partners PC and a rogue NPC that I was running as an ally). When it became clear that the Archmage was not going to survive, he used Time Stop and got 2 turns to cast Wall of Force in front of him and Globe of Invulnerability around him before the time stop effect ended. The Archmage then watched the party absolutely destroy the Death Knight before they turned focus on him. My partners PC used divine intervention to teleport them behind the wall of force and tried to use Spiritual Weapon to attack but, as it was a spell lower than 5th level, the globe negated the effect. The Archmage then teleported away, thus ending the combat. In the end, while a tactic that you use may be frustrating in the moment, it can still lead to memorable encounters and a fun experience at the table, even if it takes a little bit of time for the frustration to fade. In a campaign, it can allow the players to really build a resentment for that ONE villain that keeps escaping them at every turn so that, when they eventually do kill them for good, it feels amazing for them. It only becomes a problem when the frustration at tactical play turns into resentment towards the GM, it’s at that point that you need to break the immersion to talk to your players and quell the negativity.
I had a question about characters that have marking or challenging abilities. Usually they do something like “if the creature target someone else, it takes ___ psychic damage”. My question is: do the monsters know they’ve been marked? Is there something that would tell them that they have to attack that character? So far, I’ve been running it like they do, but this usually devolves the combat into the monster and the tank having a slugfest.
Super late to this. But another question is, is the monster panicking? And how does the monster hunt? Sure a wolf might be pissed at the aggressive cleric... but Wolves are cowardly Hunters. They convince you to panick then run you down. If warriors set a front line and look/act brave, they're not attacking you. But they might circle to charge the rogue/wizard.
In session 0 If im playing with new people I will explain how I make my decisions on who to attack. At lower lvls its often last hit or biggest dmg. But I warn them, as the game goes on I will bring in new tactics. It gives newer players time to learn how the game works and once I see them making ok decision I start bring in more intelligent enemies. I also never target downed players untill higher lvls. I am curious, did you find that you wife and sister were more engaged with the game after the kill?
i used to play and run lots of D20 Modern/Future games, and i still get lots of ideas for modern or slightly futuristic games. do you have any suggeations for a newer or less clunky system?
"For reasons that are not worth getting into, the party was dressed up as spooky ghosts and skeletons." Since you're discussing a DnD game, I can only assume that they were dressed up as ghosts and mummies to try and infiltrate a different group of undead that were already in this graveyard.
Plausible threat isn't necessarily the only thing that will draw a dumb monster's fire, either - sometimes one of their enemies is just the most *annoying*. Sure, the rogue and paladin between them have done the most damage... but only because of that goddamn bard running around in a bright red cloak, shouting insults at it and feinting with a rapier. "But I haven't landed a single hit on it, I was just trying to give them a flanking bonus!" "Yeah, which they got specifically because you attracted its attention. Well guess what: you have its attention!"
2 out of 3 Goblins ganged up on one character in session 1 of my new campaign because they were convinced that guy killed their brother and the party completely botched the negotiations and accidentally created fake evidence that that pc really killed their brother. That pc had only 2 hp and died first round, even with grumpy wizard's death and dismemberment table
That was an interesting video, but it has nothing to do with how I choose whom the NPCs or monster target. They target whomever makes the most sense given their own individual goals and interests. For the mindless monsters out there, the system laid out here is perfectly fine. The zombie and the gelatinous cube don't have a whole lot going for them mentally and hunger or survival is going to dictate most of their tactics. However for the rest of the things the characters are going to be fighting, knowing why the NPCs or monsters are where they are when the characters encounter them will answer most of your questions before the combat begins. Most creatures are not going to act like the players will. The players are playing a game. Because they know it is a game, they will make decisions that it is highly unlikely they would make in real life, and as far as combat goes this means they will very often fight whether that choice makes sense or not. Players tend not to surrender, not to attempt to escape, not to attempt to parley with their opponent. Put a group of NPCs or monsters in front of them and their hands are on their weapons. And sometimes this makes sense for the encounter you have designed, but most often the encounter is going to be dictated by the situation in which it is occuring. Orcs while raiding a village have a different purpose and mentality from those same orcs later sitting around a table in their lair. The five orcs your party finds sitting around a table drinking stolen ale, swapping stories about what they just did during the raid, and boasting about the treasures they took and what they are going to do with those they captured, or have already done, are not the same orcs they were when they were part of thirty orcs raiding a village, cutting down villagers who dared to oppose them, causing death and destruction, and looking for any opportunity to fight, rape, or pillage. If I am running the raiding orcs their targets are going to be ones of opportunity. They are riding high at the moment and the sudden appearance of the player characters is going to change that. They didn't show up here hoping to die. They showed up to rape, pillage, and plunder the village. They are likely to have a go at the characters, but if it looks like they are going to be a real problem, the orcs are going to clear out and take as much with them as they can. They are not going to stand toe-to-toe with the PCs simply because the PCs are there. Attacks are more likely to be ranged, to assess and harass at first, and if a soft target can be taken as plunder they'll kidnap one or more of the party members before melting away into the forest. Those same orcs in their lair are going to react very differently to the PCs who are now invading their home, and a lot of that will now depend on when the players get there. If the players follow hot on their heels, they are going to be prepared still to fight and may be prepared for the possibility that the characters or the villagers will follow them and seek revenge. If it is some days later, they are going to be on much less of a war footing, kicking back and enjoying the fruits of their labors and planning their next raid, their armor off and their weapons not immediately at hand. Those very different conditions are going to have a profound impact on how the orcs will choose targets and engage in combat. So for me, unless the creatures are mindless, where they are, their mindset, and the conditions in which the characters find them are going to go much further in determining whom they target than who's closest and who hit them last. As for the player or players having a bad time? Death is a part of combat. All that sword swinging and spell casting goes both ways. If the dice are against you, if you bite off more than you can chew, your characters may well die and so be it. D&D is not a storytelling game at its heart. It can be played that way but there are much better games for that purpose in my opinion. New players are going to lose characters. Old players are going to lose characters. It happens. I've lost seven characters over the past few years, some just to bad luck, some to my characters' own foolishness, and some because the party was someplace they weren't prepared to be and refused to retreat. It happens and I look forward to the opportunity to play the next character.
I tried to order the dice on only Crits and could not find any place for the promo code so I didn’t end up ordering because I was just going to do it to support you. Do you know how we use the promo code?
Wait you said they're likely to target the cleric - and in the same sentence talk about "targeting the casters in the back"... so which is it? the platemail wall of healing or the eldritch twig?
Does that mean that PCs with a INT of under 10 shouldn't be allowed to use "tactics" in combat. A lot of animals have survival instincts that give them the ability to use what appear to be tactics. Look at the time that a polar bear (INT 2) being studied by some photographers led them out onto the ice and then carefully and slowly angled back to put itself between the humans and the shoreline without them noticing.
TBH, I think most of the intelligence scores of actual animals in DnD are garbage and should probably just be ignored. Most mammals should probably have an INT score in the 5-6 range, and some could arguably be pushing 7-8. Ditto for birds.
Not that relevant for this one, but when you say 'action RPG' do you mean ones with battle map oriented combat (so exact movement speeds and ranges rather than the more cinematic positioning of having zones or even just abstract 'narrative' ranges like 'melee' or 'close'), weather or not played on a battle map, or that tend towards combat generally? The term I've most often seen for the sort of rules system you developed to control the monsters in Mortals: Descent of the Gods (both in the solo board gaming community, and in discussions of cooperative games) is a 'cardboard AI' Combat encounter topic question that doesn't really apply to D&D or PF2e, but applies to a lot of other games, so when you start doing videos focused around non-D&D games would be one I'd be very interested in hearing an answer to - When prepping combat for a game that doesn't have an equivalent to D&D's CR concept, and you're going with a 'combat as sport' style (so making the encounter based on the narrative and how powerful the PCs are rather than purely based on the fictional world as per combat as sport), what do you find the best way of gauging how tough to make the enemies compared to the players to get an approximate equivalent to the encounter difficulty ballpark?
I think saying "how evil do I want to be" could reinforce the players vs dm stereotype, but hopefully the players at your table are mature enough to understand thats not the case :) p.s. is oreo a dog? A cat? I simply must know!
A minor, cornercase flaw in the "will the player have a bad time" consideration; I have played with a chronic whiner who was the (people-pleasing) GM's spouse. THAT was torturous for a good chunk of the table to deal with. But that's also a problem player discussion.
Do you have any other methods for deciding who your monsters will target?
Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK at checkout to save 12% off of your order!
www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike
Yeah the only right way to do it to my experience use the most simplest yet logical way: let them attack logically distributing the enemies equally based on the closer enemy if in melee (the enemies minimize on being rounded up) and when uncertain from multiple target roll a dice, if it's ranged just roll a dice.
It should be on the base rules and can't live without it, since we implemented it we couldn't play without using it, it's truly the easiest way to improve combat.
I know a lot of people think really differently about it, just try it.
“Mine often don’t…”
😂😂😂
Mine don’t either.
My fiance just bought me "The monsters know what they're doing" for my birthday. From what I've read so far it's a great resource.
This is the Math!
This is the Monster Math!
The Monster Math!
Along the graveyard path!
This is the Math!
Work out NPC wrath!
This is the Math!
Supergeek Monster Math!
This was too good not to try building on, so please allow me to "yes and" you with…
I was encounter planning late one night
When my eyes beheld a helpful sight
From the depths of UA-cam did Supergeek rise
And suddenly, to my surprise…
(He taught me math!)
He taught me monster math.
(The monster math!)
Learning which skulls to bash.
(NPC wrath!)
It makes a fun bloodbath
(Deep aftermath!)
When I do monster math.
From my home office by the bathroom door,
To the dining room where I spill blood and lore,
I plot and scheme my combat plan
Till the players come to see firsthand…
(They get the math!)
They get the monster math.
(The monster math!)
It's a tabletop smash!
(They dig the math!)
They caught on in a flash.
(The monster math!)
To the monster math.
I know one thing I always do is explain out loud my monster's reasoning for it's actions to my players, if any of the players feel that reasoning is not sensible for that monster they tell me and I am sometimes willing to change up tactics. If the players feel like I'm treating them fairly and not metagaming they accept my decisions most of the time.
Then you just use some basic logic to make those decisions.
"the giant crocodile took a big hit from the barbarian which has made it think twice about this fight, however it's hungry and the rogue is heavily wounded on the edge of the lake so it's going to make an attack to grapple the rogue and then run away with it's meal."
Even though that's attacking the weakest character, it's perfectly sensible for a predator that's hungry and looking for an easy meal.
I really like using the "who attacked it last" type questions to mislead my players on how I determine my attack targets. "Who attacked it last" vs "who landed the last hit" vs "who attacked it the most" vs "who has done the most damage to it" can all feel like the same question, but with multiple different answers, letting you 'chose' which player you're attacking, with the decision feeling justified to the players. You also typically only ask this once or twice an encounter and let the players assume the inbetween.
despite having been a dm for many years, I still found this video extremely insightful. my gut reaction was "your example is too heartless to be just math". I'm glad that was the actual twist in the end.
Not attacking a barbarian because they're raging does seem evil. Is the NPC supposed be like "nah, he looks mad"
"Monster AI" is one of my favorite topics to discuss with fellow DM's. This was a great take. Thanks, Mike.
I rejigger 'biggest threat' question into "did someone use an ability that would make them less likely to be targeted or more likely to be targeted."
Because a lot of times yes, the wizard or rogue did a TON of damage, but the barbarians and Paladins have abilities that specifically make enemies 'want' to target them but it is only hinted at. When a Barbarian uses reckless attack and gives their enemies Advantage, I immediately attack them. The moment they don't use reckless attack, I make sure to state 'since the orcs weren't able to find an opening in the Barbarian's defense, they decided to attack someone else.'
Likewise, Paladins and Fighters have a lot of 'enemies who attack nearby allies instead of you do so at Disadvantage.' I will usually have the first attack be at Disadvantage, and if the enemy is intelligent at all (6-14 int or wis) change to the person with the ability. This usually means the tank gets to actually tank even though they might not be the biggest threat (sometimes they don't even look the most intimidating depending on your party make up).
This is a good channel. I like Mike.
Everybody likes Mike
This is a good comment series. I like Katoro7 (not as much as they like Mike, though)
Same
Proximity answers most of those questions for me, but a lot of your stuff is useful. In my system, and even when I ran D & D, being down is common but being dead is rare, as long as your side held the field and you get healing. So continuing to do damage to a downed foe would be extremely nasty. But it's impractical. The people on their feet are much more dangerous to you. I think I did it once. The Troll had a _personal_ reason, the dude had killed her baby. The player did not resent this. Still playing with us when he passed away forty years later.
"So, of course, I killed her."
I've also had battles where an adversary had a grudge or affinity for one hero. One may not attack his preferred hero unless that hero forces he hand. Another might target the hero who has become his rival and leave his minions to do crowd control and stop the others from interrupting his duel.
Historical battle tactics are another place to look. For example I frequently have orcs use Zulu "bull horns" inspired battle tactics against the heroes (unless playing with players who know that I do that).
Something I'll do when I'm dealing with the issue brought up @14:13 is have the monster (especially if it is high CR for the fight) engage in some cinematic brawling. In movies, the monsters are always pausing to roar in people's faces, or like throwing them at walls, or just away, instead of biting their heads off. It makes little sense, but it's a good way to have the protagonist suffer a setback, without dying. I do the same thing with the monsters in some fights. You have them toss around the PC's, it does way less damage, but it looks dramatic, and the guy who is having a bad night of rolls doesn't get stomped into the ground, but gets a "moment" in the scene.
This is a really great guide! I think the #1 question I ask first is "What are my monster's goals in this combat?".
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I've only run non-sentient beasts so far, so they attack whoever hurt them last, but this is great to remember for the future when I may have sentient antagonists!
My players are brand new to DnD (there's only 2 of them in the party) and in their first big combat encounter I had the monsters focus on the frontliner to begin with, but once he got really low hp (literally 1) I had the ranged enemies focus on the druid in the back who was shooting arrows while the big guy still went for the frontliner. I found this made the encounter feel cinematic, intense and fair. They both told me they enjoyed that combat encounter and I might keep that philosophy in future encounters
I start by reading the monsters lore, hobgoblins, orcs, and trolls are all examples of monsters that say specific parameters for enemy targeting. Then I go based on either intelligence or who attacked and or dealt the most damage to the enemy last
Great video, as always. I love how I'm constantly humbled by being reminded that the fundamentals are always the most useful tools when running a TTRPG. These sorts of video topics are great regardless of your level of experience.
1. Whom has ticked off the intelligent monster? Did Bob insult the vampire’s mom the session before? Bob is going to be lunch.
2. Is the person a newby to Adventure League or the group.
The Monsters know what they are doing are the ONLY DM support book, I tell people to buy in hard copy. This is so you can take notes in the books.
Great video. I used to get nervous that my players would judge me if i didn't play the villains optimally. But I've found that they rarely notice, or if they do, they assume there's a reason for it. The only time i get pushback is if my decision is detrimental to them. So they don't normally complain if, for instance, I don't focus fire.
Thrse are the exact questions I consider when I DM. I aim for fun at the table, and I know that my newer group will be having enough issues learning the system. So much so, that I've made a Metropolitan City thats basically modern, but with DnD flair. It is a college city that teaches adventuring skills to gather resources for the city. A sort of Hogwarts meets Stargate vibe, to snapshot various things to teach my players. 'Merchant needs herbs for potions' 'skills test games at a festival' 'platformer exploration of a cave'. College pays adventurers, players have an easier time adjusting to the rules.
I like to ask myself questions and make little observations from the perspective of my monsters out loud, especially when ymthings are getting a bit tense. To me, at least, it feels like it takes a bit of the 'bad tension' out of the picture where a player might think they're being targeted or ignored unfairly
With respect, I give Mike the benefit of the doubt knowing he has obviously grown as a DM, but for any new DMs it should probably be mentioned that his example is problematic. Typically encounters shouldn't be designed to intentionally target and kill a character to "make your plot personal", this is the height of adversarial DM behavior. A story beat can be very important, but Mike clearly has intimate knowledge of his players and knew this would be ok, there are better ways to invest players in your plot. (I'm sure this could be, or already is the topic of another video?)
I always pull back from being a bastard in my combats. I think my players are having fun, but besides accidentally killing two characters (both the same player... Whoops) I just don't do that kind of thing. But I try to put in other goals within the combats. They are encounters, after all.
My question though would be this: I also really fail at *storytelling* within combat. Getting my boss to do his villain-splaining and generally getting across lore and motivations and clues throughout the combat itself. Do you have any tips on how to run the villain "dramatically" and getting across to your players all the bits of info that should come out (like who hired the assassins, where the trigger for the bomb is, or how to stop the giant sky portal). Thanks!!
I’m reminded of a tactic I sometimes employ. Provoking aggro. Mechanically? There really isn’t a way to do this. I mean, I think there is single thing Paladin’s have that can maybe do this in some situations, but don’t play that class. However, tactically, I might try and provoke aggro as a tactic by building up some role play with the enemy npc that makes it reasonable for them to target me. I did this tactic with two characters (as I usually try to not do it as I usually fight as an archer). One character did this with the bbeg. He had decided he hated the bbeg and did a ton of stuff for months that specifically were designed to piss her off. When the confrontation came he set up rope trick and kept teasing her mid battle, even when he missed a shot, to get her attention on him as much as possible. At one point she manages to get up into rope trick and he, with a wild grin, sets off some beads on the necklace of fireballs he had prepared. Kinda kamikaze but I had calculated the max damage and knew that even if he failed the dex save that he would make it out alive. After that it was easy to just bonus action disengage and regroup elsewhere for him to draw her too. Yes he really pissed her off. It was a hilarious tactic to me to try that but it was all or nothing since it was the final fight.
Anyway, not my only fight I did provoke aggro via roleplay. In another I had my character do this to draw an enemy away from my other party members who were unconscious. I was using an astral elf so I had starlight step. What I did was use free action to provoke the enemy to come after me and draw them away from the party members, then used starlight step to get as close as I could and covered the rest of the distance with my movement, healed one member and left them a potion, then returned to battle, interposing myself between our enemy and my party. The tactic worked as my party member stabilized and healed the other while I distracted the beast and eventually took it down. It was a risk that paid off for me but would not have worked if my dm had not understood I was pulling aggro on purpose. They rewarded my roleplay by playing into it and it ended up saving the entire party who was majorly at risk of mostly dying at that point. Not that this was the first time I pulled this tactic with this character. He has far less self preservation and a huge thing about protecting those he cares for that it makes sense for him to pull this tactic more often than I might use for other characters of similar builds. He did this tactic of drawing aggro with two other battles previously. He has since pulled back some since we got a better frontliner (which was a gap my character was filling in) but he still has used it somewhat to prevent further attacks on party members. Given he is an archer this means his hp pool is left untouched most of the battle if he plays his role correctly. This means he has the leeway and the distance to risk drawing the enemy’s attacks onto himself as he can soak it and is usually positioned enough away from the party that they can have a breather. Of course, like I said, this character has starlight step so he can sometimes hop skip his way out of these issues too. Not that he always does if it will bring the attention back to the party.
Still, this is a tactic I use sparingly. I am glad the dms I play with will reward me roleplaying in such a way to draw aggro but it isn’t a common tactic I use and this is ok with me. I try only to use it to assist the party, not be a hero or cool. If I played a more frontliner I believe I would have less fun with this tactic as it would come off more like that image. But anyway, this is how I play and try to angle for the dm to have the enemies move a certain way.
(Oh and as for the months long provocation, for context, my character was fighting a winter goddess so he left fabric flowers of snowdrops at all her places of worship he found and even tied a few to his arrows which he shot at her during that final showdown. She got freaking pissed when she realized she was face to face with him for the first time. At some point he did stick his tongue at her and I had him laughing t her nearly the entire battle, even when she hit him with an attack because he was just that pleased with being able to get under her skin. He had gone into the battle knowing it was either he wins or dies trying and he had already done all in his power to lean things in his favor for winning. In the end, the party used their final ace and that’s when I had him stop laughing at her, and say, “it’s over.” And take off on his serpentine owl figurine. The other party member did too and then they dropped their final ace on her which took her out. Oh and yes he left her one last flower, this time a lily, when he left. He intended to completely destroy her worship too so he was making strides at entirely wiping out her influence in the region if not her entire ability to exist. He even befriended an ancient dragon of the region who agreed to pass on his advice to cease the goddess’s worship in the region even long after he was gone. It was a heartfelt moment for my character who nearly cried because all he had worked up to was finally complete with that promise. He had done all he could, even provoking attention he would have preferred not be on him, he has social anxiety actually, and channeling it towards his goal of wiping her out. With this, this was the last of what was in his power to do. So he kinda cried on the dragon friend and gifted her a legendary level potion as thanks for it. Dragon let him cry on her some more. He still stops in to visit her too. He is an elf so he will possibly live a very long time and the friendship will too, but yeah, dragon will still out live him. Anyway, sorry, I just really loved that story and that campaign wrapped up recently and so my mind is still on the prologue there).
I think that Wolves or animals are still a step up from weak elementals, zombies and skeleton. The latter creatures act on feebleminded instinct, attacking foe but not friend in the simplest way possible. Animals have the intellect to see danger and know when to run or for Wolves or similar creatures, they also have the ability to form pacts or groups to try and get sneak attacks on the pc's as well. But that is just a small hint, video is still great.
As a tie breaker when multiple PC's are the same distance, for low intelligence creatures, I have them go after who did the most damage to them since their last turn. Just hitting someone isn't necessarily going to goad it if it didn't so much damage. Damage definitely get attention. If they are intelligent, then it would usually go to who seems the most vulnerable. I have made situational decisions that don't follow that, like a troll getting hit by fire or acid. Even if it wasn't the most damage, that would definitely be more threatening.
Cat: *meows*
Mike: “No this isn’t a toy for you. It’s a toy for me.”
I believe Oreo is a dog...😅
@@KickyFut oops 😅
I don't struggle with this kind of stuff, but I really feel this video could help with new GMs. Good stuff, Mike!
The rough model I follow is picking one of three that the enemy falls into, tactical (humanoids/intelligent enemies), primal (animals/monsters), and mindless (lesser undead/plants).
Intelligent enemies focus on the biggest threat/biggest party benefactor, primal enemies focus on the least threatening they can knock out and drag away to eat, mindless just go whack whack against the nearest target.
This is great! I pretty much use all these tactics myself, but I wouldn't have been able to lay it all out as well as you did. Got myself a new vid to send to my new-DM friends!
Mike your advice is system agnostic and timeless! Loved this video thanks so much for your hard work and commitment! Happy gaming!
Typically, I get a marching order, and typically, they attack the front liners, unless it's an ambush, where they may strike from the rear.
This is EXACTLY what I do and I've never had an issue with it. In fact, the only dice I openly roll in front of my players are the dice I roll when I am "evens/odds" or "1-3" deciding which player will be attacked in certain scenarios. My higher level party has a cavalier tank and, often, less intelligent enemies will go for her horse instead of her because "big horse is tasty target" even though I know they don't have a chance in hell (short of a nat 20) of hitting the horse. Those enemies on switch to her once they realize they can't really get at the horse after a bit. Intelligent foes will just flat out ignore the horse practically no matter what because they know the rider is the problem. If a squishy jumps in front, they know I will not save them from their dumb moment but they also know they likely won't be chased past that front line if they retreat behind the cavalier.
Seconding "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" by Keith Amman, great resource, but if you want something a little easier:
Some monsters (such as Orcs) go for the strongest-looking target.
Some monsters (such as Goblins) go for the weakest-looking target.
Some monsters (such as Crocodiles) go for the closest target.
Some monsters (such as Beholders) go for a random target.
Pick whichever makes sense. If you aren't sure, pick one at random.
I have similar reasoning for when a monster might run away, which also might depend on who their leader is and how close they are.
Your input is really helpful. Usually I create encounters with the narrative in mind, but not how the actions will tackle (at least not as deep as making all the questions you shared). So far my players they had fun, so maybe I've done some of the questions subconsciously.
Theres something very amusing about the cuts when the GM screen just appears halfway through a thought.
With dumb monsters, I generally attack the closest player, but sometimes I go after the most recent attacker or the attacker who hit the hardest. I don’t think about it too long and just go with my first instinct… like a dumb monster would. It also makes combat go faster.
I usually tell the players as I'm controlling the monster why it's attacking whom. It might be a form of light metagaming, but it makes the encounter feel fair. If the monster is a smart and efficient enemy, the players will know that the monster reasoned that taking the healer out first would be the smarter play. It allows you to focus fire on a single player without it feeling unfair. This gives them counterplay options which are nice. Example: the paladin tossing a Sanctuary towards the cleric healer, someone throwing a fog cloud, something like that. Otherwise, in my experience players just unload their biggest DPS stuff and pray to outdamage the encounter
This reminds me of my ladt Wednesday gsme where the villain should if rained down elements to the majority of the party, but one player thst was the target of her vengeance got into optimal movement range and so she broke off her AOE assault to fiercely melee the sole player. Giving into her hate gave the rest of the party a moment to reposition and attack.
Basically playing suboptimal but in character as a npc in combat can add depth to the situation.
I like your monster AI formula but I think it would be better if, when there is a tie in distance, the monster goes towards the group with the most hit points instead of the biggest group. This makes it so that tanks can still feel like they're tanking and that everyone feels like they are at risk in a combat.
both the parties I run for have decided to adopt what I call the haste meta, where in every combat the sorcerer twin spells the haste spell on his allies. As such any enemy with a decent int knows that if the sorcerer is in range, try to kill the sorcerer
alternatively, a dispel magic or counterspell could take the wind out of their sails
@@zippomage oh sure but that’s kind of a Dick move. No one wants to play a game where you just don’t get a turn because the dm has decided you are too strong.
I love tactics, for intelligent devils monsters and abberations I’ll write out what information they’ve gathered on the party to do the most logical turn
"My player characters were dressed as ghosts and skeletons."
Understandable. Have a nice day.
Maybe they focus on the smallest enemy because that is the one likely to be an easy meal. This is the lion and the wildebeast strategy. And when the choices are to kill the wife's character, the sister's character, the paladin, or the monk, never go for the wife or the sister.
You mentioned Intelligence in your video, but another stat that can be used for tactics is Wisdom. Wisdom can help determine a creatures fight or flight instincts, what HP thresholds it will consider retreating at or which creatures appear to be the weaker prey (A major difference here with Wisdom vs. Intelligence is that a Wolf's Wisdom likely wouldn't cause it to fear a mage as much as a barbarian).
The Monsters Know What They're Doing goes into great depth with these kinds of stat analyses, as well as more niche focuses, like how a creature's type would affect those decisions. Undead wouldn't be concerned with something like survival instinct for example.
One of my rules.
If the enemy is proficient in religion or has a passive perception above 17 they immediately target the cleric.
If they have any spellcasting levels they can tell the difference between a magic user and a non magic user in obvious situations. (Wizard v. Fighter. Druid v. Barbarian. Monk v. Cleric)
Speaking of DMs being strategic… In my group’s most recent game, we’d set up camp in a house in an abandoned village and barricaded the doors and windows bc we knew there was a hag and some winter wolves lurking around. When said hag and winter wolves attacked, they couldn’t get to us and we decided to basically go the siege route and pick off as many as we could from safety. So…. The DM had the hag throw up an ice wall blocking any attacks we might throw, forcing at least some of us to leave the safety of the house to try and break her concentration. It was a really fun fight (save a slight rules misread that almost left most of the players unable to do anything for a whole round) in part because the DM basically matched our strategic behavior with his own tactical decisions (which a scheming hag would TOTALLY do) and created an encounter where we had to think carefully, not *just* roll dice
I found a fun workaround to some very scary creatures not hitting the players when they were down, and that was that these vicious predators had never before seen anything get back up after they had knocked it down so they would just gun straight for their next victim. Knocked two players unconscious and they both died to failed death saves, so I guess those beasties had the right of it.
I agree with something that said below that I don't care for this example because I don't love going into battle as a DM with the intention of trying to kill a player. Unless I've spoken with the player before hand about killing off their character in this way, I wouldn't do it. If they die because of poor choices or getting in over their heads or even bad luck, fine, it happens, but deciding to narratively kill a character, even if it's done in a way that 'seems' like it was just bad luck, isn't fair.
Outside of that specific scenario, I generally agree with the principles here, except maybe the 'don't target your wife/spouse' one which while I understand the practical reality of it, I think if you're actively favouring certain players at the table, sooner or later it's going to be noticed, probably by the players who end up taking the bulk of your attacks as a result.
12:05 Honestly, I ask this exact question out loud for a very specific reason.
To gauge how my players are feeling, and whether the additional challenge is wanted.
Usually, my players will actually answer the question, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively, and more often than not I will use their answer to decide.
Maybe I shouldn't do this, there's probably a bunch of psychological reasons not to, but it works for me currently.
I was DMing last night and this video is a timely release! A lot of these questions Mike gave are similar to my train of thought when I run combat encounters.
My session last night was a party of four levels 4s and one level 1: an artificer, a barbarian, a wizard, a cleric/wizard, and the level 1 paladin. In the two combat encounters Ieaned towards the side of tailoring the fights to the group. I often justified my monsters' tactics with "Okay let's make the most out of your character's class features" to make the players feel rewarded for their build choices. They also had this story element that when someone was unconscious, they drag their bodies to an portal that led to a location out of the party's reach. The monsters at the end targeted those who were sustaining the party (the artificer and cleric/wizard)
Though there was also a monster in the first encounter that targeted randomly amongst the party. I rolled dice publicly because that special monster really was just meant to hit anyone that was in its territory and its reach.
Anyway great video!
Hey Mike, thanks for the video, I really enjoyed it. Here's a follow-up question - what advice would you give when a game master is running a monster that's more intelligent than they (the GM) are?
Something like a dragon or a mind flayer has genius-level intelligence and will anticipate things that the GM doesn't have a clue about. What's the best way to portray that during combat?
My way of using mindflayers: regardless of what Action the Player do I roll a die to see if he has predicted it. If je did than there is a trap or something else awaiting them.
I would love if you talked about tracking initiative and spell concentration, and remembering spells that last longer than 1 round
A lot of this resonates with me. I've actually already made an excel spreadsheet that keeps track of what I think are 2 of the most important factors (devoid of any story context): How much damage a player has done so far, and what is the max damage each player did on an attack? The former helps me decide who the monster sees as the most consistent threat, and the latter I use to decide if a monster is going to give up and run away (assuming the monster is not mindless. If the fighter cuts a goblin in half in a single strike, nearby goblins are smart enough to assume that fighter can do the same to them (they don't know it was a critical and max damage, and therefore unlikely to do that much damage again)). If I am running a particularly intelligent monster, I will add non-damage numbers to this spreadsheet: number of hit points a player heals an ally for, level of spell that was counter spelled, these are things that an intelligent monster would deem as threatening, and therefore make those characters more worthy targets.
I had an encounter where the intelligent monster went after the one that was goading it the most to fight. Got to him and downed them with a rebudle and the paladin laid on hands hand tried to get the monster to attack them. They rolled a 12 on the persuasion roll and i had the monster kill the PC he just downed instead of attacking the paladin. The monster saw the opportunity to show off his evil side
I play it differently for foes depending on the nature of the monsters. Combat can really differentiate them.
Just thinking of humanoids, in 5E, hobgoblins are really organized warriors. They fight very strategically and know how to focus their fire. However, appeals to their honor may work and they might switch targets if they're hit really hard. They require effective leadership, though, so removing their leaders from the board will push them towards morale break. Orcs are savage attackers and go for the biggest, baddest appearing target. They may switch if they're hit hard but will tend to go for the nastiest foe on the board. An alternative view might be that they attack the weakest in a desire to kill... up to the DM, or indeed maybe a good way to distinguish different tribes of orcs. Big and dumb monsters like ogres might go for the last person that hits them; this goes double for mindless ones. Trolls, which tend to be quite overconfident due to their regeneration, will attack accordingly, but may try to eliminate an obvious threat. Carnivores that are purely opportunistic often attack what appears to be the easiest target and usually bug out when the going gets tough. If I'm indifferent or there's no obvious target, I tend to just roll dice, but usually there's some kind of reason.
For what it's worth, lore-wise, event he stupidest Undead should be drawn toward actively displayed divine magic.
However, tactically (from personal experience), this is a really good way to have a TPK, as taking down the cleric first, even if they're not dead, is going to make it so your players aren't having fun.
If I'm ever stumped I'll roll a d6 and then count off my players in whatever order their discord videos happen to be in that online session
I love your videos supergeekmike, and you always have such interesting ideas.
I once intentionally had my bad guy not kill a PC because I didn’t want to ruin his night. After the game he told me to never do that again, if his character dies he’ll just roll up a new one.
Just found you via algorithm. This is surprisingly helpful, I've thought of a lost of these things before but a. Didn't think of the group size thing and b. Probably over estimated average intelligence a bit.
I actually think going for the larger group makes total sense for a melee enemy if they're not too bright(maybe between 5 and 9 int), basically they think they're kratos or something and they're just gonna get a massive combo cleaving through hero after hero
I ask myself these questions:
What's it's intelligence level? Is it the type to be goaded or to hold a grudge?
Who hit it last and who has hurt it the most?
Is there an opportunity to create a more impactful moment? (This could be something humorous or something dramatic.)
Am I being fair? Are my actions based in reality or are they based in the reality of the game, and which is more appropriate for the moment? This is a little more nuanced, but it's also broad. But basically I'm considering this: Is the monster attacking this player because that's what the monster should do, or is it because the player was annoying me? If the monster is attacking the most realistic target, is it in the best interest of the game?
Great video! I loved this!
This is the exact kind of metric I try to work out: what's my fallback metric if I don't have a particular reason in mind, and otherwise make the fun of the table the goal... With newer more easily discouraged players getting some leeway over more experienced players who can handle (or WANT) more of that harshness or randomness.
Really nice video! Gave me a lot of great tips!
So, you're saying you did the math? You did the monster math?
Intelligence is a good baseline to determine how tactical an opponent is; I would point out that a wolf is very likely to be aware of its surroundings, and would be wary of getting surrounded.
Something else to keep in mind is how much does the opponent know about the PCs? Whether it's through scrying, informants, or similar means, some antagonists will have a good idea about the PCs' capabilities. This means they will have particularly effective spells prepared (if applicable), and, whenever possible, choose terrain that is far more favorable to themselves.
One of your final points is also very important: what is the goal/purpose of the encounter, and, if applicable, the foes that are part of it?
Great video topic, Mike.
(Still have to look through the video, but the mention of Monster A.I. made me go on a thought trip)
Oddly enough, I have developed a "praxis" (not really a system, more like a practical philosophy?) similar to Mortals: Descent of the Gods. without ever knowing of its existence.
For my own game engine, all enemies have a short section in their profile card that is a checklist they run in descending order (always from top to bottom) of priorities that *should* (I'm still a human being, after all xD) convey the feel for the enemy.
So: check line in the list, check whether it applies or not, if it does, apply it; if it does not, go to the line below.
This was made out of the necessity of writing a single player skirmish, arena-style game to play when I am commuting (as I used to commute a lot and don't have a driving license) and to side-step the natural (and understandable) tendency of a player to favour their own character over the enemies to Win The Game.
A couple of examples.
Kill-Tac Mercs go straight for the kill, so their list was "Does the merc hear/see combat? If so, move to the combat; if not, camp the closest chokepoint until they do. Once in combat, prioritize player characters (the lore of the game distinguishes them from NPC's) and attack other NPC's only if PC's aren't available. When in combat, cover their advance with the rifle and engage in melee as soon as possible leveraging their superior gear."
Relatively easy, realtively straight-forward: Kill-Tac Mercs ain't supposed to be tactical geniuses, only really sturdy bricks thrown at your face and a way to ensure the player doesn't feel safe when looting (any EfT reference is on purpose xD).
Rats, instead, are the opposite, and their Behaviour List is slightly different because it's more a series of "if" statements: "Look for loot, but physically take it only when combat is as far away from them as possible. If engaged, run for cover and hide. If a piece of loot is in an area with a firefight going on, look for other pieces of loot in safer zones. Once the backpack is full, extract."
The scavengers (the Rats) are an indicator: if you see 'em, either the area is safe or they're going to one, plus loot pinhatta. Also, as long as you don't attack them or try to take their stuff, they won't give you trouble.
The last example is The Outlier and is possibly my favourite.
The Broken is a collective term for broken down droids and robots that somebody took from dumpsters and landfills and threw into the arena: effectively, they're zombies. Their Behaviour List is: Follow the sounds of combat, heavy equipment and explosions and attack their source until it stops.
The silly thing about the Broken is that they go down in one hit, but making noise spawns them from trash cans and dumpsters scattered around the map, so clanking around in heavy armour and toting the big gerns means you *will* have to use them, if only to keep the mecha-undead at bay.
And expose yourself to Kill-Tac in doing so ^^
Also, I mean... if you don't kick shit into portals, what are you doing with your life xD
Keith Ammann's books are great for this:
"The Monsters Know what they're doing"
"MOAR! Monsters know what they're doing"
"How to defend your lair"
In a oneshot I ran recently for my partner, I played an Archmage villain who ended up escaping through some pretty dastardly, but ultimately logical, tactics.
The fight was set in an ancient necropolis where the Archmage had summoned a Death Knight to fight the two party members (my partners PC and a rogue NPC that I was running as an ally). When it became clear that the Archmage was not going to survive, he used Time Stop and got 2 turns to cast Wall of Force in front of him and Globe of Invulnerability around him before the time stop effect ended. The Archmage then watched the party absolutely destroy the Death Knight before they turned focus on him. My partners PC used divine intervention to teleport them behind the wall of force and tried to use Spiritual Weapon to attack but, as it was a spell lower than 5th level, the globe negated the effect. The Archmage then teleported away, thus ending the combat.
In the end, while a tactic that you use may be frustrating in the moment, it can still lead to memorable encounters and a fun experience at the table, even if it takes a little bit of time for the frustration to fade. In a campaign, it can allow the players to really build a resentment for that ONE villain that keeps escaping them at every turn so that, when they eventually do kill them for good, it feels amazing for them. It only becomes a problem when the frustration at tactical play turns into resentment towards the GM, it’s at that point that you need to break the immersion to talk to your players and quell the negativity.
I had a question about characters that have marking or challenging abilities. Usually they do something like “if the creature target someone else, it takes ___ psychic damage”.
My question is: do the monsters know they’ve been marked? Is there something that would tell them that they have to attack that character? So far, I’ve been running it like they do, but this usually devolves the combat into the monster and the tank having a slugfest.
Thank you for this video!!!
Super late to this. But another question is, is the monster panicking? And how does the monster hunt?
Sure a wolf might be pissed at the aggressive cleric... but Wolves are cowardly Hunters. They convince you to panick then run you down. If warriors set a front line and look/act brave, they're not attacking you. But they might circle to charge the rogue/wizard.
In session 0 If im playing with new people I will explain how I make my decisions on who to attack. At lower lvls its often last hit or biggest dmg. But I warn them, as the game goes on I will bring in new tactics. It gives newer players time to learn how the game works and once I see them making ok decision I start bring in more intelligent enemies. I also never target downed players untill higher lvls.
I am curious, did you find that you wife and sister were more engaged with the game after the kill?
i used to play and run lots of D20 Modern/Future games, and i still get lots of ideas for modern or slightly futuristic games. do you have any suggeations for a newer or less clunky system?
"For reasons that are not worth getting into, the party was dressed up as spooky ghosts and skeletons."
Since you're discussing a DnD game, I can only assume that they were dressed up as ghosts and mummies to try and infiltrate a different group of undead that were already in this graveyard.
Plausible threat isn't necessarily the only thing that will draw a dumb monster's fire, either - sometimes one of their enemies is just the most *annoying*. Sure, the rogue and paladin between them have done the most damage... but only because of that goddamn bard running around in a bright red cloak, shouting insults at it and feinting with a rapier. "But I haven't landed a single hit on it, I was just trying to give them a flanking bonus!" "Yeah, which they got specifically because you attracted its attention. Well guess what: you have its attention!"
Nice questions i will put them on my dm screen
Another good one!
2 out of 3 Goblins ganged up on one character in session 1 of my new campaign because they were convinced that guy killed their brother and the party completely botched the negotiations and accidentally created fake evidence that that pc really killed their brother. That pc had only 2 hp and died first round, even with grumpy wizard's death and dismemberment table
Thanks for saying monster math, now 'Monster Mash' is stuck in my head.
That was an interesting video, but it has nothing to do with how I choose whom the NPCs or monster target. They target whomever makes the most sense given their own individual goals and interests. For the mindless monsters out there, the system laid out here is perfectly fine. The zombie and the gelatinous cube don't have a whole lot going for them mentally and hunger or survival is going to dictate most of their tactics.
However for the rest of the things the characters are going to be fighting, knowing why the NPCs or monsters are where they are when the characters encounter them will answer most of your questions before the combat begins.
Most creatures are not going to act like the players will. The players are playing a game. Because they know it is a game, they will make decisions that it is highly unlikely they would make in real life, and as far as combat goes this means they will very often fight whether that choice makes sense or not. Players tend not to surrender, not to attempt to escape, not to attempt to parley with their opponent. Put a group of NPCs or monsters in front of them and their hands are on their weapons.
And sometimes this makes sense for the encounter you have designed, but most often the encounter is going to be dictated by the situation in which it is occuring. Orcs while raiding a village have a different purpose and mentality from those same orcs later sitting around a table in their lair. The five orcs your party finds sitting around a table drinking stolen ale, swapping stories about what they just did during the raid, and boasting about the treasures they took and what they are going to do with those they captured, or have already done, are not the same orcs they were when they were part of thirty orcs raiding a village, cutting down villagers who dared to oppose them, causing death and destruction, and looking for any opportunity to fight, rape, or pillage.
If I am running the raiding orcs their targets are going to be ones of opportunity. They are riding high at the moment and the sudden appearance of the player characters is going to change that. They didn't show up here hoping to die. They showed up to rape, pillage, and plunder the village. They are likely to have a go at the characters, but if it looks like they are going to be a real problem, the orcs are going to clear out and take as much with them as they can. They are not going to stand toe-to-toe with the PCs simply because the PCs are there. Attacks are more likely to be ranged, to assess and harass at first, and if a soft target can be taken as plunder they'll kidnap one or more of the party members before melting away into the forest.
Those same orcs in their lair are going to react very differently to the PCs who are now invading their home, and a lot of that will now depend on when the players get there. If the players follow hot on their heels, they are going to be prepared still to fight and may be prepared for the possibility that the characters or the villagers will follow them and seek revenge. If it is some days later, they are going to be on much less of a war footing, kicking back and enjoying the fruits of their labors and planning their next raid, their armor off and their weapons not immediately at hand. Those very different conditions are going to have a profound impact on how the orcs will choose targets and engage in combat.
So for me, unless the creatures are mindless, where they are, their mindset, and the conditions in which the characters find them are going to go much further in determining whom they target than who's closest and who hit them last.
As for the player or players having a bad time? Death is a part of combat. All that sword swinging and spell casting goes both ways. If the dice are against you, if you bite off more than you can chew, your characters may well die and so be it. D&D is not a storytelling game at its heart. It can be played that way but there are much better games for that purpose in my opinion. New players are going to lose characters. Old players are going to lose characters. It happens. I've lost seven characters over the past few years, some just to bad luck, some to my characters' own foolishness, and some because the party was someplace they weren't prepared to be and refused to retreat. It happens and I look forward to the opportunity to play the next character.
Oh awesome I am glad found this video again I am using discord to run games atm and this will help a lot
Thank you, this Video will hepls me alot because im about to start DMing
I tried to order the dice on only Crits and could not find any place for the promo code so I didn’t end up ordering because I was just going to do it to support you. Do you know how we use the promo code?
Wait you said they're likely to target the cleric - and in the same sentence talk about "targeting the casters in the back"... so which is it? the platemail wall of healing or the eldritch twig?
Great content!
I really love the breakdowns, even if I have never actually played dnd.
Also curious, Will you be ever talking about dimension 20 seasons?
That’s the goal at some point!
@@SupergeekMikehyped for that. I love the more high energy play brennan lee mulligan brings to the table.
Players find it exhilarating when you attack them, so try to always attack every player once.
Came for the Critical Role stayed for the banging DM videos
Odd question.
Could we imagine God as the one DMing for the entire earth simultaneously?
Once the healer reveals themselves, high intelligence monsters will target the healer.
Diamond ex machina 21:28
Actually I believe the wolves will go after stragglers and not the group. Since that is what wolves (and most predators) do.
My dm uses dice to pick who his monsters attack. Up until recently its been mostly me. I stg his dice have it out for me
Does that mean that PCs with a INT of under 10 shouldn't be allowed to use "tactics" in combat. A lot of animals have survival instincts that give them the ability to use what appear to be tactics. Look at the time that a polar bear (INT 2) being studied by some photographers led them out onto the ice and then carefully and slowly angled back to put itself between the humans and the shoreline without them noticing.
TBH, I think most of the intelligence scores of actual animals in DnD are garbage and should probably just be ignored. Most mammals should probably have an INT score in the 5-6 range, and some could arguably be pushing 7-8. Ditto for birds.
I like Mike
your game looks har as hell would you ever bring it back?
Not that relevant for this one, but when you say 'action RPG' do you mean ones with battle map oriented combat (so exact movement speeds and ranges rather than the more cinematic positioning of having zones or even just abstract 'narrative' ranges like 'melee' or 'close'), weather or not played on a battle map, or that tend towards combat generally?
The term I've most often seen for the sort of rules system you developed to control the monsters in Mortals: Descent of the Gods (both in the solo board gaming community, and in discussions of cooperative games) is a 'cardboard AI'
Combat encounter topic question that doesn't really apply to D&D or PF2e, but applies to a lot of other games, so when you start doing videos focused around non-D&D games would be one I'd be very interested in hearing an answer to - When prepping combat for a game that doesn't have an equivalent to D&D's CR concept, and you're going with a 'combat as sport' style (so making the encounter based on the narrative and how powerful the PCs are rather than purely based on the fictional world as per combat as sport), what do you find the best way of gauging how tough to make the enemies compared to the players to get an approximate equivalent to the encounter difficulty ballpark?
I think saying "how evil do I want to be" could reinforce the players vs dm stereotype, but hopefully the players at your table are mature enough to understand thats not the case :) p.s. is oreo a dog? A cat? I simply must know!
Oreo is a dog! ☺️
A minor, cornercase flaw in the "will the player have a bad time" consideration; I have played with a chronic whiner who was the (people-pleasing) GM's spouse. THAT was torturous for a good chunk of the table to deal with. But that's also a problem player discussion.