Should Monsters use sneaky tactics in combat??

[Dausuul]

I never disputed that. The question is, did you do that in or out of combat, using the distinct and artificial line between them in RPGs?

In a firefight there's an enemy is shot and goes down. They may be faking to bushwack you, they may be playing dead instead of running, they may be dying, or they may be dead. There is another enemy shooting at you. Which target do you service first?

I maintain that dropping the guy who is trying to kill you right now is more important then making sure the guy who may or may not be trying to kill you in a minute or two is dead.

My answer to that would be, "Take cover from the guy shooting at me, then put a couple rounds into the 'dead' body, so that when I break cover I don't have to worry about being shot in the back. If I'm without cover in the middle of a firefight, then I have more pressing matters to attend to than shooting anybody, dead or alive." But IANAS*, and in any case, modern combat with guns and no magic is very very different from D&D combat.

In D&D, it's tough and time-consuming to put down a guy who's up and fighting. It's quick and easy to finish off a guy who's down. And it's also quick and easy for the enemy cleric to turn the latter into the former.

So, as a monster, you have three tactical options:

1. Attack the enemy who's up and fighting, who will take a while to kill. Very soon there will be two enemies up and fighting, plus the healer.
2. Attack the healer, who will also take a while to kill. Very soon there will be two enemies up and fighting, plus the healer.
3. Attack the enemy who's down, who will die right away. Very soon there will be one enemy up and fighting, plus the healer.

Option 3 is the most sensible one, even from an in-game perspective. The only reason I don't do it more often is that it leads to excess PC mortality.

Besides, as other people have said - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I am not allowed to CDG fallen player characters because "it's metagaming," then PCs should not be allowed to CDG fallen monsters either.

[SIZE=-2]*I Am Not A Soldier.[/SIZE]

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Besides, as other people have said - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I am not allowed to CDG fallen player characters because "it's metagaming," then PCs should not be allowed to CDG fallen monsters either.

Except that when monsters fall down, they're already dead (PH 295). (This same page gives the designers' intention: "Most monsters don't attack combatants who are dying.") If you believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, perhaps you should roll death saves for each fallen monster. Who knows, you might roll a 20. Or you could have minions running around with healing potions for their fallen bosses. Honestly, it just depends on what kind of game you want to run.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If enemies didn't react intelligently, then we wouldn't have Tucker's Kobolds.

Can you imagine a world without Tucker's Kobolds?

What a horrifying place!

 

[Lanefan]

If enemies didn't react intelligently, then we wouldn't have Tucker's Kobolds.

OK, OK - I'll bite.

Tucker's Kobolds???

Lanefan

 

[FireLance]

OK, OK - I'll bite.

Tucker's Kobolds???

Google is your friend.

 

[S'mon]

I never disputed that. The question is, did you do that in or out of combat, using the distinct and artificial line between them in RPGs?

In a firefight there's an enemy is shot and goes down. They may be faking to bushwack you, they may be playing dead instead of running, they may be dying, or they may be dead. There is another enemy shooting at you. Which target do you service first?

I maintain that dropping the guy who is trying to kill you right now is more important then making sure the guy who may or may not be trying to kill you in a minute or two is dead.

Certainly I recall in my British army training we were trained to finish off the apparently-dead, and there were particular techniques for safely searching 'corpses' to avoid getting fragged, but this was all to be done once combat was finished.

 

[taliesin15]

Reflecting what most people are saying here, I think the DM should play monsters appropriately--take the case of humanoids: Gnolls and Bugbears might use some sneaky tactics, but are just as likely to go berserk right into battle. Hobogoblins probably use more sophisticated battle tactics than Orcs. Goblins and Kobolds are fairly intelligent, but mainly, because they are so relatively weak, are prone to use traps and ambushes oriented to take advantage of their large numbers. They have to be sneaky.

Something like a Golem or less intelligent Undead would tend to attack right away.

The problem I recognize I have as a DM is whether I really have enough intelligence myself to properly run a high level Monster or NPC with a 22 or higher Intelligence! Almost every BBEG in my upcoming campaign fits this description, and if there's anything I'm insecure about, its running those guys. My current thought is that each of them is insane in some way--otherwise, why would someone so smart be so evil?

 

[Nebulous]

Google is your friend.

Tucker's Kobolds kinda reminds me of the goblins in Tallow's Deep. I'm gonna have to use that flaming hallway trap, that's evil.

"Guys...why are we standing in oil?"

 

[taliesin15]

old greybeard writes:

Point in mind: Said player, is a Half Ogre Barbarian of 9th level so not soft, pulls open a dusty grey stone sarcophagus, disturbing the remains of a long dead priest, suddenly from the broken bones rises a man shaped mist, now i might step back beside the cleric at this point, as its probably undead, nope he waits and attempts to whack it, Inititiative, he strikes and misses 50% incorporeal, it hits and drains two levels, character walks away, player in a sulk.

I entirely agree with those who say the player is being whiney (sometimes I think players like that confuse D&D with videogames).

But--and this point is germane to the point of more intelligent monsters using sneaky tactics and the DM roleplaying them that way--how intelligent is this Barbarian character? At first glance, it does sound like he could be a big dumb guy, OTOH, at 9th level, presumably he has had 9 levels of training (and experience). Even though he is a Barbarian and not a Fighter, surely the character should not be so green in terms of battle tactics, right?

Of course, the burden is on the players to role play right, but sometimes IMC I'll slip players a note in effect saying "your training suggests you try this or that battle tactic with this monster"--very rarely will I do that, and usually I'll have notes written for all the players, giving them different impressions on an unusual encounter, each reflecting the class, race and background unique to them.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Depends on the monster...

Is the monster intelligent enough to use tactics? For something like a group of Hobgoblins I would pull out all the stops. The descriptive text of the Hobgoblin states that they are a very militaristic society. By all means they should use high ground, formations to prevent flanking, phalanxes with reach weapons to allow two ranks to attack, and archers at a distance to provide support fire.

Something like an Owlbear I'd say no... the thing would just run into melee with the closest target.

Tucker's Kobolds reminds me of the module "Dragon Mountain".