Am I Being a Jerk DM?

[delericho]

When controlling intelligent enemies who have tactical reason to achieve combat advantage (such as back-stabbing thieves or trip-attacking wolves), I have all of the enemies move into position, hold their attacks, and then unleash all of their attacks once they are flanking enemies with combat advantage.

The complaining player is arguing that I need to move Thief 1, attack with Thief 1, and then move Thief 2, attack with Thief 2, etc. I think that I should be able to coordinate attacks by delaying actions so they can deal more damage.

Hmm, interesting. My gut feeling on reading your OP was to side with the player... but then the later posts corrected that misconception. The bottom line: per the rules, you are right.

(You're also right because, as DM, it is within your remit to make appropriate rulings when running the game. But in a discussion about the rules, that's an aside.)

It's worth noting, of course, that in D&D's turn-based combat, each PC and monster has its own discrete turn that are resolved in sequence but that, in the 'real' situation that the rules are supposed to be modelling that is a nonsense. That is, on the gameboard Thief1 moves and attacks and then Thief2 moves and attacks... in a real situation, they would both move concurrently.

(I would also note that you should, of course, play monsters in a manner consistent with the intelligence/wisdom. So, having the thieves, or the wolf-pack, operate in this manner is entirely appropriate. Having a band of zombies to the same is not so appropriate. Although even then, I would argue that it is the "seeking combat advantage via flanking" that is the issue there, not the "attacking all at once" thing.)

Oh yes, one more thing: IME, players have no qualms about using the rules and/or the tactical situation to extract maximum advantage for themselves and their allies. If they can scrape up a +1 bonus from somewhere, you can bet they will, especially if that +1 bonus is the difference between a near-miss and a hit. (Unfortunately, they seem less rigorous about making sure they don't forget, or in the worst cases 'forget', every -1 penalty... Odd, that.)

That being the case, I see absolutely no reason the DM should do otherwise on behalf of the monsters. You absolutely should be fair, but in a life-or-death struggle, you should be damn sure to have your monsters fight as hard as they can to stay alive!

 

[Balesir]

I think there is a bit of an issue about "unfairness" if you have all the monsters (of a type, or just all) go on the same initiative pip - as I do. They thereby do get an advantage in doing this sort of thing, which is not available to the player characters. My solution is to use such moves only fairly sparingly - when I think the monster has a particular need and intention to, rather than every time such a move is available.

The alternative, to be 'fair', would be to roll each monster's initiative separately, and that's just too much hassle!

In my games I strongly discourage regular holding of actions, I don't mind delaying intiative in the first round though. As such I would not do this, I don't want to have players thinking of delaying actions every turn. It just slows things down way too much.

Yeah, I hear this. I have been toying with a houserule where Readying an action does not move you in the initiative order (which is, I find, the thing that really loads on the admin), but you grant combat advantage to all attacks while holding an action. That strikes me as somewhat believeable (you are concentrating on the trigger for your action, not on the fight around you, as much) and simpler.

 

[S'mon]

I think there is a bit of an issue about "unfairness" if you have all the monsters (of a type, or just all) go on the same initiative pip - as I do. They thereby do get an advantage in doing this sort of thing, which is not available to the player characters.

I think if you have a diverse, mutually reinforcing, 'Player Character party' set of monsters, then they should arguably either (a) go on different init counts or (b) go on the commander's init count, but then show limited initiative/tactics, as they are following orders. Of course the GM is running the monsters solo vs 4-6 player brains, so maybe that already makes things realistic.

If you're using a wolf pack or similar, they suffer from lack of diversity; letting them go on the same init count and coordinate probably seems like a reasonable substitute to keep them threatening. It's also plausible for a well coordinated hunting pack.

 

[Saagael]

You're fine, just let make sure the players know this isn't how all creatures act.

What I've done is made it clear that any group of creatures acting on the same initiative count (a group of wolves or zombies or dire crabs or what have you) can all do their actions at the same time. So in this case, the wolves could all move, then all attack, then all use a minor action to shift away.

The reasoning for me is that its too much tedium and bookkeeping to manage 16 minions all acting in order. I just move them all and have them attack.

The flip side is that when multiple players have their turns back to back (usually 3 or more) I let them do the same without dealing with held actions. This is mostly to speed up combat though.

 

[DiomedesRex]

I say go right ahead, personally.

Realize, this opens up tactical opportunities for the players, too. If Thug A is waiting for his buddy, and the players immobilize Thug B, then the players have effectively negated BOTH of their attacks, a huge gain!

 

[SensoryThought]

I personally don't support such a tactic, though it isn't cheating. When players do it, they are relying on their fellow players to comply and with different initiatives, things can go wrong. But you control all the monsters so they *know* nothing can go wrong. If you want to make things tough add a level or a few extra minions.

Also, I try to discourage held actions, interrupt powers, and also have all enemies move simultaneously to keep things moving fast.