D&D 5E Agro and Target choices

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone!

I've been playing a lot of Fire Emblem lately, enjoying having some tactical combat when I can't get to any D&D. One feature in Fire Emblem is that the game shows you percentages and damage when you point over a target. Another feature is that when you go to move a unit, the game shows you what the enemy is likely to do in response.

This allows you to make smart decisions, like sending your lower damage heavy armor character up front to draw attacks, leaving less defensive units back to move in after. This got me thinking: how do you choose targets for your NPCs?

I've always found it curious that D&D hasn't, to my knowledge, made any "agro" mechanics or suggestions on how NPCs and monsters should determine their target selection. Having something, even soft guidelines, even monster by monster, could not only help DMs to feel that they're "playing fair" (perhaps this is my own worry), and also to let players develop a strategic sense.

So what do you think different suggested tactics or target selection should be for different types of encounters? When do you think enemies would focus fire? How do you think they select their targets? This could be monster based (perhaps orcs don't focus fire, they prefer to attack one on one, while hobgoblins and other goblinoids gang up and focus fire lightly armored targets and those with holy symbols first), or it could be intelligence based (though a wolf pack knows to go after the smaller and weaker members of a herd).

It could be situational, such as wild animals behaving differently when hunting for food (go after the weaker looking targets and try to drag them away) vs when defending their territory or young (try to wound and scare away before going for the kill).

If you're playing 4E D&D or with characters with marking mechanics, when do you choose to follow the mark or when do you choose to ignore it?

I'm curious how everyone else does it.

 

[Garthanos]

If you're playing 4E D&D or with characters with marking mechanics, when do you choose to follow the mark or when do you choose to ignore it?

ummm can I just answer I roleplay it and pretend that is an answer... I do meta more than that though especially if my player likes extra attacks from enemies ignoring the mark., You can also look at there build and tell hey he wants hit bad ass offense angle and play to providing the player that.

 

[abirdcall]

Most intelligent enemies go for the weaker characters who want to stay at range. It just makes sense to me.

Zombies will just attack whomever is closer. Particularly arrogant enemies might try to take on the toughest looking character, etc.

Usually though they go for the easy prey both because they are more likely to succeed but also so they don't die from their attacks.

 

[Eltab]

A blog (and now book) "The Monsters Know What They Are Doing" gives you one fellow's analysis. I paged through the book and think other DMs should at least take a look-see at it.

One factor I used when I was DM'ing a Tiamat campaign: do these monsters have a history with the PCs, or is it the first time they met? If they fought before (or belong to an organization whose members would tell each other about the experience) the enemies acted 'smarter' than those who never heard of the PCs before.
For assassination attempts, the enemy collects intelligence on the PCs before the fight ever begins; then he / they do everything you can think of to mess the PCs over and kill them dead.

 

[Charlaquin]

Generally D&D leaves “aggro” in the sense of enemies prioritizing targets based on their actions up DM discretion. Sometimes modules will give some advice on monster tactics in a particular encounter, but there’s little to nothing in terms of hard mechanics. 4e used marking and various punisher mechanics to kind of approximate the tactical impact of aggro, and I think that approach works better for D&D.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

5e doesn't have "aggro" or "taunt" mechanics. The closest that it gets is imposing disadvantage on targets other than you, to encourage enemies to attack you. Even the Compelled Duel spell - Which is the closest thing to a "Taunt" effect (because you need magic to do cool stuff) does not actually restrict the target to just attacking the caster.
It is still very much in the hands of the DM to decide who the monsters attack.

I generally decide who the monsters attack based on their motivation, situation etc.
I have let players use Charisma (Deception or Intimidation usually, sometimes Animal Handling) to encourage opponents to attack specific characters.

 

[Shiroiken]

For me, it depends on the intelligence of the enemy. Low intelligence creatures will simply attack the closest enemy, normally one that attacked/dealt damage to it, and will ignore effects that will damage it (booming blade, opportunity attacks, etc.) or tricks that the PCs have (sentinel, the shield fighting style, etc.). Average intelligence will attack creatures that dealt the most damage to it or an ally, since that's the greatest threat, but they won't ignore obvious mechanics that will harm them or tricks they've already experienced by the characters. Highly intelligent will focus fire, and target enemies that seem either weakest or the most dangerous (usually casters in both cases).

 

[Coroc]

....
I generally decide who the monsters attack based on their motivation, situation etc.
I have let players use Charisma (Deception or Intimidation usually, sometimes Animal Handling) to encourage opponents to attack specific characters.

This ^^

You can let pure roleplaying decide what the outcome is, or intimidation or other skills if applicable.

I use the houserule that fighter classes can intimidate using STR instead of CHA, and dwarven fighters can even intimidate with CON as key attribute.

 

[S'mon]

Most intelligent enemies go for the weaker characters who want to stay at range. It just makes sense to me.

Generally my monsters go for the squishy looking but dangerous targets first; spellcasters who unleashed powerful effects, healers, and lightly armoured archers are some favourites, along with Rogues & Monks who stick around in melee range. They may ignore someone who looks like a camp follower. They'll target the guy with greatsword & loincloth in preference to the guy with plate sword & shield, which in 5e may be a mistake (unkillable Barbarian & Smitey Paladin).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Generally my monsters go for the squishy looking but dangerous targets first; spellcasters who unleashed powerful effects, healers, and lightly armoured archers are some favourites, along with Rogues & Monks who stick around in melee range. They may ignore someone who looks like a camp follower. They'll target the guy with greatsword & loincloth in preference to the guy with plate sword & shield, which in 5e may be a mistake (unkillable Barbarian & Smitey Paladin).

And this can be played on; I've played a barbarian in 4e who wore wizards' robes and whose staff was ornamented like a wizard's staff but had a very very sharp point, it actually being a greatspear. Meanwhile and entirely independently the wizard (for similar reasons) wore leather armour and carried a sword. NPC surprise was normally brief.