Aggro

[Doug McCrae]

I had zombies attack whoever was nearest, irrespective of marking or who damaged them. They are also too dumb to flank. I figure they're zombies, they want to eat brains and they don't care about anything else, even their own continued existence.

 

[generalhenry]

(One thing I tend to do is to have enemies ignore 'downed' PCs -- PCs at 0 to -10 hit points. Not always, but most of the time.)

It's a standard 4E rule that monsters ignore down PCs.

Personally I only ever have recurring villains attack down PCs.

 

[DracoSuave]

It's a standard 4E rule that monsters ignore down PCs.

Personally I only ever have recurring villains attack down PCs.

Except Zombies.

Zombies go for the brains.

BRAAAAIIIIIINNNNS

 

[Andor]

Zombie Cheerleader: What do we want?

Zombies: BRAAAINNSSS!

Zombie Cheerleader: And when do we want them?

Zombies: BRAAAINNSSS!

 

[Victoly]

(your enemy is fully aware of the fact the Fighter's mark carries a bit more than a -2 to hit if he's in range.)

I'm not sure I agree with you there. Technically, the Fighter just applies the standard "marked" condition to an enemy, but their own reflexes and training allow them to take extra advantage of this. I'm not sure that will amount to a big difference in decision-making on the DM's part, but it's a technical difference anyhow.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Most sentient creatures understand that the first rule of tactics is ALWAYS "geek the mage", and many are willing to risk that -2 penalty if the fighter's marked them in order to take out the squishy guy in the robes.

Do you think this is still true?

For most foes (apart from minions) the strikers are now the biggest threats and I would have thought that they would be the first choice for attacking by sentient creatures.

Sure in previous editions it made tons of sense to get the mage first, because they were so much more powerful than everyone else. Now most of the potential targets have the same kind of power to hurt you!

Cheers

 

[DracoSuave]

Do you think this is still true?

For most foes (apart from minions) the strikers are now the biggest threats and I would have thought that they would be the first choice for attacking by sentient creatures.

Sure in previous editions it made tons of sense to get the mage first, because they were so much more powerful than everyone else. Now most of the potential targets have the same kind of power to hurt you!

Cheers

Which is why the strikers have tools to keep themselves out of harms way, so that enemies have disincentives to attacking them. Hellish Rebuke punishes you -directly- if your buds attack the striker, as example.

'MINIONS! KEEEEEIIIILLLL THAT MAN!'

That man Hellishly Rebukes the Big Bad. Minion comes on, smacks the 'Lock....

'WAIT! Don't! ON second thought... hit the dumb fighter....'

 

[Roger_the_jolly]

Usually the DM chooses who the monsters attack, taking into account the monsters intelligence and knowledge as appropriate. Some monsters have a basic "order of attack" listed in their tactics.

Generally - mindless creatures attack whatever is nearest them, animal intelligence attacks whatever appears most vulnerable to them, or whatever attacked them last, and more intelligent creatures attack based on their personal inclinations.

This.

Also, bear in mind that those with intelligence or even semi-intelligent living in a magic suffused realm will take into account the risk from magic as well as from arms and will prioritize accordingly.

I usually play intelligent creatures attack like this:
Concentrate as much fire power on the one that the leader or the average mob of the type will think is most dangerous or most likely to go down first. Down him and move to next. Change order of attack if new information gained from opponent attacks (e.g. warlock's curse, wizard's spell etc.) indicate a wrong choice as to who is most dangerous.

Remember also that for the party this may be the first time they meet monsters of this type, but the monsters themselves may have been battling other adventurers for a while already and gained tactical experience as to what to look for and who to attack.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Do you think this is still true?

For most foes (apart from minions) the strikers are now the biggest threats and I would have thought that they would be the first choice for attacking by sentient creatures.

Sure in previous editions it made tons of sense to get the mage first, because they were so much more powerful than everyone else. Now most of the potential targets have the same kind of power to hurt you!

Cheers

It depends. In a way, all roles are important targets. The Wizard is particularly nasty against Minions, but he is also nasty against regular monsters - area effects, "debuff" effects, these all get in the way of taking out the others. Sometimes, you need to take out the FLAKs before you take out the Artillery. (This probably means Skirmishers take down Controllers, Soldiers take down Strikers)

 

[ST]

One thing I find neat about 4e is that defenders "manage aggro" so to speak not by changing who attacks who (apart from marks, of course), but more by position-based effects. You threaten squares, push targets around, and apply status effects, and this ends up meaning that you have a pretty strong ability to determine whether someone's going to be attacked even if you cant change who they're targeting.

So this means that you can effectively defend regardless of how the DM chooses NPC's targets. That's a mechanic that I think computer games could get a lot of mileage out of.