D&D 5E Enemies should only attack when they have advantage (and other quick tips)

[BookTenTiger]

I've been trying to make my combats more exciting without a ton more pre-planning. I don't always know if an encounter is going to be combat, social, or exploration, so I find that trying to prep dynamic combats never works out for me. Often I put a lot of work into thinking up urgent stakes, a dynamic battlefield, and strategic enemies... and then the players decide to negotiate or sneak by!

So to make my combats more exciting and dynamic in the moment, I've been using this little rule of thumb:

Enemies only attack when they have advantage.

Okay, first off, that's a very soft "only." Sometimes it makes sense for an enemy to attack even if they don't have advantage, such as a big snake that grapples on a successful hit.

But in general, if an enemy doesn't have advantage, I have them do something else. Often this is an effort to get advantage on their next attack, or an ally's attack. Maybe they knock a character prone. Maybe they disengage and run. Maybe they douse the lights. Maybe they improvise!

Since I started following this guideline, combat has been a lot more fun. I don't have to plan out dynamic combats in advance, because I know my enemies are going to be moving around the battlefield, doing crazy things like knocking over columns or setting things on fire. I can't say combat has been more deadly (it definitely hasn't been), but it's been more exciting!

...

Do you have any quick tips to use during a combat (not during prep!) that keeps the fight exciting and fun?

 

[Endroren]

Here are a few of my favorites:
Surrender or Retreat. Both of these are underused combat options. NPCs and Monster don't want to die anymore than the characters do. Enemies that retreat if things look bad can get help or attack later when they feel their odds of winning are better. Or maybe they just never come back - sometimes you know when you're outclassed. Surrender is another fun option. Heroes that slaughter foes that have yielded aren't "heroes." Assuming the players figure this out, what do they do with a dozen prisoners? Once players know these are possible outcomes, it starts to shape their battle plans, allowing for more creative strategies that aim to "defeat" rather than "slaughter" the enemy.

NPC Teamwork: RPG enemies seem to underutilize team work. A shield wall of defenders protect a row of archers rather than engaging the enemy. Maybe enemies work in pairs or squads. Enemies working intelligently as a team are far scarier than groups of savages attacking wildly. Also, focusing attacks on a single player until they go down, then the next, then the next is greatly underused.

Take the Player's Alive: What happens when the enemy starts trying to do non-lethal damage mid-combat? This tends to terrify players almost more than death, since most players fear being taken captive.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My only issue with this is that it is ineffective, and I can't imagine PCs every doing it.

If round 1 I don't have advantage but I set up so round 2 I do... and round 2 I attack with advantage I am rolling 2d20 and the best I can do is hit once. If I had attacked both rounds I still roll 2d20 just 1 per round and if both hit I hit twice...

add to this attempts that fail to gain advantage being completely dead turns.

 

[Endroren]

My only issue with this is that it is ineffective, and I can't imagine PCs every doing it.

If round 1 I don't have advantage but I set up so round 2 I do... and round 2 I attack with advantage I am rolling 2d20 and the best I can do is hit once. If I had attacked both rounds I still roll 2d20 just 1 per round and if both hit I hit twice...

add to this attempts that fail to gain advantage being completely dead turns.

To be fair, he was talking about doing it as a GM as a way to make combat more than just a series of repeated smacks. Players will likely go with whatever does the most damage, but it's worthwhile for a GM to do what they can to add richness to the combat.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To be fair, he was talking about doing it as a GM as a way to make combat more than just a series of repeated smacks. Players will likely go with whatever does the most damage, but it's worthwhile for a GM to do what they can to add richness to the combat.

except it adds artificial variety, and makes an already easy game easier. Where I can imagine it being fun for a fight or two, overtime it is just as predictable "Does have advantage yes/no" is just an extra step

I run my monsters like the PCs

 

[BookTenTiger]

except it adds artificial variety, and makes an already easy game easier. Where I can imagine it being fun for a fight or two, overtime it is just as predictable "Does have advantage yes/no" is just an extra step

I run my monsters like the PCs

The players in my game almost always try to get advantage on their attacks... so I guess I am running my enemies like PCs!

 

[Umbran]

But in general, if an enemy doesn't have advantage, I have them do something else. Often this is an effort to get advantage on their next attack, or an ally's attack. Maybe they knock a character prone. Maybe they disengage and run. Maybe they douse the lights. Maybe they improvise!

So, as has been noted, this is pretty ineffective in D&D. While it creates narrative in the scene, advantage isn't so great an asset that seeking it every round makes sense.

However, for Fate, what you're describing is a solid tactic - this is because every attack is resisted, and attacks made without some bonus are often ineffective. Having an enemy always seeking to have an Advantage or other Aspect to tag often pays off.

It is a case of matching the tactic to the mechanic.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The players in my game almost always try to get advantage on their attacks... so I guess I am running my enemies like PCs!

do they not realize that every attack they give up is still a d20 roll?

 

[iserith]

Although it's mostly a prep thing in my experience, even improvised combats benefit from establishing cover, elevation, lighting, and difficult terrain. Without those things, it's a white room and, often, rocket tag.

On the fly, if you commit to adding 3 things that complicate the situation or that can be used by either side to their benefit (or to their enemies' detriment), then that will immediately increase the number of meaningful choices the players can make. More meaningful choices per unit of time, more engagement by the players.

Adding morale also helps, particularly if the players know what they need to do to break the enemies' morale. So if, for example, they know that goblins run away when they are reduced to half hit points or less, they can use that to deal with an overwhelming force of goblins or even prepare to block their escape if, say, escaping means alerting something worse or the like.

 

[BookTenTiger]

To be fair, he was talking about doing it as a GM as a way to make combat more than just a series of repeated smacks. Players will likely go with whatever does the most damage, but it's worthwhile for a GM to do what they can to add richness to the combat.

Yeah, exactly this. As I said in the OP, this guideline does not make my combats more deadly. But they are fun!

When the enemy uses their action to shove the character prone, then raises their axe above their head, ready to strike down on the next round...

Mechanically it's a really poor choice. I'm halving my damage, and who knows if the enemy is even going to get a chance to hit!

Narratively it's really fun. Another character gets to swoop in and rescue their ally, or that character gets to roll out of the way dramatically, or fire off a spell from a prone position...