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

[GMforPowergamers]

I think the idea is not to make it a hard rule that monsters never attack unless they have advantage. More of a general guideline that monsters will seek to gain advantage when they can, often using their action to gain it or grant it to an ally instead of attacking.

but the mechanic of advantage is not giving them an ingame advantage... and sometimes it is giving them an in game disadvantage to do so... sometimes that is fun but on any regular bases it makes the monsters just act dumb.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But if the monster has at least two allies that will act before the target, it’s a great move.

that is now adding to the OP though... he said 1 monster push 1 PC... yes if 1 monster generates advantage for 2 other monsters that may be worth it... but that was not the example given.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whether or not this is effective depends on the power level of the monster relative to the PC's. In general, if the monsters needed an 18 or better to hit the PC's anyway, using actions to improve the chance of success probably is worthwhile. On the other hand, if they needed some more typical value to hit - say a 14 - making two attacks is generally better than one attack with advantage because of the possibility of two lucky hits.

Actually, mathematically advantage is more valuable the closer the number you need on the die is to 10 or 11. If you need an 18 to hit, advantage increases your chances from 15% to 27.5% - the equivalent of slightly more than a +2 to hit. If you need a 10 to hit, advantage increases your chances from 55% to 79.75% - the equivalent of slightly less than a +5 to hit.

 

[Oofta]

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...

I will sometimes have enemy 1 knock prone so that other enemies can attack with advantage, but if you use your entire action to knock a PC prone they just stand up on their turn. Nothing was gained.

Or I'm missing something.

 

[Charlaquin]

that is now adding to the OP though... he said 1 monster push 1 PC... yes if 1 monster generates advantage for 2 other monsters that may be worth it... but that was not the example given.

No, what he said was monsters only attack if they have advantage. Under this system, the optimal thing for a monster to do if it doesn’t have advantage is to use its action to grant advantage to as many of its allies as possible so that they can attack. Knocking an enemy prone is actually a great tactic under this rule, because it allows as many allies as can surround the target to attack. He also said it’s a very soft “only,” meaning that, if a monster not attacking because they don’t have advantage would be a bad move (for example when it’s one lone monster), they don’t have to follow it. Also the prone thing was only one example; he also suggested utilizing the environment by knocking over pillars and the like. Dousing lights if there are PCs who lack Darkvision. Just generally seeking to get the upper hand when they can.

 

[Oofta]

Actually, mathematically advantage is more valuable the closer the number you need on the die is to 10 or 11. If you need an 18 to hit, advantage increases your chances from 15% to 27.5% - the equivalent of slightly more than a +2 to hit. If you need a 10 to hit, advantage increases your chances from 55% to 79.75% - the equivalent of slightly less than a +5 to hit.

But it's not just your chance to hit, if you sacrifice 1 attack to get advantage on the second you don't get to add any bonus damage. An ogre does 2d8+4 damage, even if you increase the odds of hitting (more on that in a sec), you are now only going to do 1 potential hit for 2d8+4, not 2 potential hits for a total of 4d8+8.

As far as sacrificing 1 attack to get advantage on 1 attack, that will never be a good idea. Yes, you increase your chance to hit once, but you also have to calculate in the odds that both dice will give you a result that would have hit. If I need a 15 or better to hit, with advantage I could easily roll 2 dice with a 15 or higher each.

Sacrificing 1 attack to get advantage on 2 or more attacks may make sense depending on the odds of getting advantage. Trying to knock someone down isn't guaranteed.

Weaker enemies using the help action may make sense and is something I do. That ogre? There's a goblin running around distracting the PC so the ogre gets advantage on their next attack is something that happens now and then.

 

[Charlaquin]

But it's not just your chance to hit, if you sacrifice 1 attack to get advantage on the second you don't get to add any bonus damage. An ogre does 2d8+4 damage, even if you increase the odds of hitting (more on that in a sec), you are now only going to do 1 potential hit for 2d8+4, not 2 potential hits for a total of 4d8+8.

As far as sacrificing 1 attack to get advantage on 1 attack, that will never be a good idea. Yes, you increase your chance to hit once, but you also have to calculate in the odds that both dice will give you a result that would have hit. If I need a 15 or better to hit, with advantage I could easily roll 2 dice with a 15 or higher each.

Right, same reason true strike is the worst spell in the game. And since this is a soft rule, when the PCs are fighting one lone ogre, it doesn’t have to blindly follow this rule. However, if the ogre has allies that don’t hit as hard, it’s often a very good move for one of them to use its action to grant the ogre advantage.

Now, depending on the exact circumstances - how much the ogre and its ally both hit for, what their attack bonuses are, what the PCs’ ACs are, etc. this might be a net gain or a net loss in expected damage output. But the point of this rule (more of a guideline, really) isn’t to optimize damage output, it’s to put the DM in the mindset that, given the choice between attacking without advantage or using its action to create an advantage for itself and its allies, a monster should generally favor the latter.

Sacrificing 1 attack to get advantage on 2 or more attacks may make sense depending on the odds of getting advantage. Trying to knock someone down isn't guaranteed.

Sure, it’s a risk. But it’s a risk that makes the combat more dynamic, so it’s probably a good one for the monsters to take when they have the opportunity. This shouldn’t override common sense tactics, but it’s a good rule of thumb to help prevent combats from turning into slog fests where everyone stands still and throws d20s at each other until one side runs out of imaginary “don’t get killed” points.

Weaker enemies using the help action may make sense and is something I do. That ogre? There's a goblin running around distracting the PC so the ogre gets advantage on their next attack is something that happens now and then.

Yeah… I feel like the help action is a little against the spirit of this rule. Like, sure, it works to grant advantage to a heavier-hitting ally, but I think the point is to think more about how the monsters can use improvised actions to gain the upper hand. At least describe something interesting the monster is doing to help its ally, if nothing else.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, what he said was monsters only attack if they have advantage.

please read the example I responded to in post 1... he didn't say "one pushes someone down then others come and use advantage... that wasn't even hinted at

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...

please show me were inn this example another monster is.

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!

he seems to understand that not only is it suboptimal (hardly the worst sin) but that it is something said orc can most likely understand is happening.

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...

and here we go with a list of options with no mention of other enemies

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right, same reason true strike is the worst spell in the game. And since this is a soft rule, when the PCs are fighting one lone ogre, it doesn’t have to blindly follow this rule. However, if the ogre has allies that don’t hit as hard, it’s often a very good move for one of them to use its action to grant the ogre advantage.

yes if I have a kobold use the help action on the oger that is a net increase... but I think having the kobold have some kind of shifty sneak attacky ability is both more dynamic and more fun.

Sure, it’s a risk. But it’s a risk that makes the combat more dynamic, so it’s probably a good one for the monsters to take when they have the opportunity.

risks only make sense if they can pay off... so agian the single orc pushing prone is just a lump of HP for the PCs to hit like a punching bag.

This shouldn’t override common sense tactics, but it’s a good rule of thumb to help prevent combats from turning into slog fests where everyone stands still and throws d20s at each other until one side runs out of imaginary “don’t get killed” points.

I just think you need more then "If no advantage look for advantage"

Yeah… I feel like the help action is a little against the spirit of this rule.

but the help action is most assuredly the most effective way to generate advantage... I am so lost, do you want to generate advantage or not?

Like, sure, it works to grant advantage to a heavier-hitting ally, but I think the point is to think more about how the monsters can use improvised actions to gain the upper hand.

that sounds like the flavor of 'help action' to me

At least describe something interesting the monster is doing to help its ally, if nothing else.

 

[Charlaquin]

please read the example I responded to in post 1... he didn't say "one pushes someone down then others come and use advantage... that wasn't even hinted at

please show me were inn this example another monster is.

In my experience it’s rare for the PCs to fight a single lone monster, so presumably somewhere. If not, I probably wouldn’t have the monster do this, and given that the OP specifically said this was a very soft rule, I think that call is well within the spirit of the rule to make. I’m more interested in discussing the idea of monsters using improvised actions to gain advantage generally than with one specific example of when that’s a dumb thing to do.