D&D 5E Monster Tactics: How Ruthless a DM are you?

[MonkeezOnFire]

While 5th edition is much less dependent on tactical decisions than 4th, but there are still tactical decisions to be made. I sometimes find myself struggling as a DM whether to have the monsters "play to win" or if I should ease up during tense situations.

For instance this weekend my roommate and I wanted to get a taste of how high level would work so he made up 4 level 15 PCs and I ran an encounter for him to fight an adult blue dragon (CR 16, classified as a hard encounter by the DMG). His party consisted of the 4 classics: a fighter, a wizard, a cleric and a rogue. On the first turn I had the dragon breathe lightning on the wizard and fighter, dealing considerable damage to both (and making the wizard lose concentration on his fly spell causing the fighter to fall out of the sky. It was pretty awesome). On the dragon's next turn I then had a decision to make. I could focus all the dragon's melee attacks on one character, spread them around, or even just have the dragon keep to the air and wait for lightning breathe to return. My gamer mind was telling my to go for the wizard since the caster can be dangerous if left unattended and he was probably close to going down. However, I had a gut feeling that playing the monster to win was a jerk, move so I decided to land near the cleric and fighter and lay some hurt onto them. Maybe it was that since my roommate was playing 4 completely new characters and that he didn't have the time to fully digest their options, if he couldn't play to his full potential then I shouldn't either.

This little experiment showed me that perhaps how you run a monster is more important to determine difficulty than CR.

In a typical game however, I'll try to do what makes sense for the monster. Goblins attack whatever is closest in a bloodthirsty frenzy. Beasts will attack whats closest or turn to charge when something really hurts them. Most times I don't mind having my monsters take attacks of opportunity if I think they would want to be someplace else.

TLDR: How smart are your monsters in combat?

 

[the Jester]

My monsters fight as smart as their stats and personalities indicate they should.

In the case of the dragon you mentioned, I'd actually have taken another option: Breathe, fly away for a while, wait for the pcs to expend resources. Come back, breathe, fly away. Repeat a few times. Only come in for the kill once they were already softened up.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I pretty much do what you mentioned in your last paragraph--run enemies based on their natures and the combat situation at hand. The only time I don't do this is if would lead to a tedious outcome--such as an ongoing stalemate. In such cases I'll change the situation to interject some fun.

In a similar vein, I abhor the tactical wargame elements of RPGs where game mechanics emphasize strategies that do correlate to either real-life combat or cinematic combats (such as focus fire on an individual scale). I'll use whatever powers and influences I have as a DM to curtail these sorts of tactics and create more naturalistic combats.

 

[Nebulous]

I like to play monsters as smart or dumb as i think they would be. Sometimes though, for the sake of not wiping out the party, i have them make some sub-par decisions. Now long ago, when I was running 3e with 5 tactically minded players, well hell, they outsmarted me nearly every step of the way. I couldn't out-strategize their combined brain power except through intense preparation and trickery, just trying to wrangle a challenging fight.

 

[EricNoah]

This is the heart of the DM's role - do you follow the rules and let the dice decide, or do you fudge or play sub-optimally at times - and I tend to err on the side of "play to have fun" rather than "play to win". Killing a PC is a PITA, for the player and for the DM. But you really do want the monster to have a chance to do its schtick. This is one reason I like "hero points" or "fate points" or whatever mechanism you might use to let the players occasionally decide when they really, really don't want to get walloped. Then I can be as tough as I want and yet the players get to keep playing.

 

[Mercule]

My monsters fight as smart as their stats and personalities indicate they should.

This. Skeletons will walk straight across a trap but fight to the "death". Wolves avoid the funny-smelling oil, but you only have to show that you're too much trouble before they leave (unless you make it clear you'll hunt them). Dragons are often smart enough that they have some access to DM knowledge of PC stats. Liches are definitely smart enough that their prepared spells are determined on-the-fly unless the PCs put in a lot of effort to catch it off guard.

 

[Pickles JG]

In a similar vein, I abhor the tactical wargame elements of RPGs where game mechanics emphasize strategies that do correlate to either real-life combat or cinematic combats (such as focus fire on an individual scale). I'll use whatever powers and influences I have as a DM to curtail these sorts of tactics and create more naturalistic combats.

Well it is a tactical wargame on some level & on that level focus firing & protecting the squishies are the most fundamental tactics. There is also the idea you hit the target with the greatest ratio of damage output to survivability.

Honest question how do you avoid this?

It's easy to play monsters dumb & random but players will obviously focus fire as much as they can. I usually try to have smart monsters do similar & of course pack hunters naturally pick on the weakest member of a herd & try to bring it down together.

Marks & similar in 4e went some way to mitigating the issue but that solution is even more abstract. Other stickiness rules & making firing into melee punitive also counter this as ranged attackers are the most capable focusers.

I also usually target "bloodied" characters before fresh ones if given the chance.

Typically you have to play dragons & similar well within their capabilities or they will just kite you with repeated breath weapons as Jester points out or some other frustrating tactic.

 

[Ahrimon]

My monsters fight as smart as their stats and personalities indicate they should.

In the case of the dragon you mentioned, I'd actually have taken another option: Breathe, fly away for a while, wait for the pcs to expend resources. Come back, breathe, fly away. Repeat a few times. Only come in for the kill once they were already softened up.

Don't forget to include personality too. Dragons are supposed to be haughty and arrogant. If your dragon's buddy's ever found out about his tactics he would be the laughing stock of all of the dragon socials. The big cowardly dragon who was afraid to fight the PCs.

 

[Sacrosanct]

For the longest time, the DM was called the referee. That means he or she must be fair, but not necessarily cater to the players or do things in their favor. That means I run monsters how they would typically behave in the game world.

 

[Derren]

If you do not let the monsters fight "to win" and actually think monsters fighting effectively is a jerk move then throw away your dice and simply tell the players that they win after 3-4 rounds of combat with no danger to them.