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

[GMforPowergamers]

In my experience it’s rare for the PCs to fight a single lone monster,

it isn't super rare but not the most common for a group of PCs to face off against a single enemy... but it is VERY common for a fighter to engage 1 orc/goblin/hobgoblin ect at a time.

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.

you can add things to make the action make sense and then I can add "but the PC has the ability to kip up as a reaction" see adding things doesn't help at all

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.

then create an example... I even asked just that "Can you give an example of a time when it didn't disadvantage the monster" and Umbral came back with 1 target knocking prone and 3 others getting advantage... and I agreeed that was a good idea. But then you came in to pretend like that second example was the same as the first and I was nuts for opposing the first....

 

[Celebrim]

we don't play by averages we play by roll... 2 chances to hit is better than 1

I'm not going to keep arguing after this, but you are literally proving my point here. In both cases you get two chances to hit, so advantage is never better than trying to attack twice. But additionally one attack with advantage is worth less than two attacks without advantage because while both have the same chance of producing at least one hit, only two attacks offers a chance of producing more than one hit.

An upshot of this discussion though is you've really impressed on me that advantage is not as useful of a mechanic as I had thought because as elegant as it is, the math doesn't really do anything particularly useful.

That said, for what advantage actually does, check out this video:

 

[Charlaquin]

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, if you’re using a custom Kobold stat block, go for it. Also, like, why not both?

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.

Yeah, everyone agrees that it’s dumb for a lone monster to waste its action pushing a PC prone. Can we please move on from this talking point now and discuss the broader point of monsters using their actions to create advantage for themselves and their allies?

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

More is great too. This is just one piece of the puzzle.

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?

It’s the most direct way to grant one ally advantage. But in a situation where monsters don’t generally attack without advantage? It’s actually pretty inefficient because it’s one action for one instance of advantage. At best this will lead to half the monsters attacking with advantage and half not attacking, which is the True Strike problem again. Help is only really useful here if the ally you’re helping hits harder than you. However, if you can knock a target prone so all your allies can gang up on it? If you can knock down a pillar so several of your allies can use it for cover? If you can toss some caltrops on the floor to impede the PCs’ escape? If you can extinguish the PCs’ torches so your Darkvision-having allies all get advantage agaibst the Darkvision-lacking PCs, who will likewise have disadvantage? Now that’s interesting stuff.

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

Yes, if the help action is the most interesting and useful thing you can do, at least give it some flavor.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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?

My #1 tip is that you should call a battle over once the end result is obvious. When the PCs have defeated the mind flayer and it's two ogre thralls there really isn't much need to play out the rest of the combat with the handful of minions. Switch to non-combat narrative to describe the rest of the battle and move on with the game.

EDIT: I realize this post is a bit off topic of what the OP was asking for. As a better suggestion for their direct question I can say I usually employ a "rule of cool" mantra during Gaming. If a player makes an effort to do something out of the ordinary bag of tricks I will allow the trick to have a greater effect than it otherwise would as a normal tactic.

As an example, if a line of bad guys were running up a mineshaft with rails at the players and the wizard wanted to use a lightning bolt spell to zap them out of range or not in a straight line channeling it through the rails I'm going to say yes and give the bad guys disadvantage to saves.

 

[Charlaquin]

it isn't super rare but not the most common for a group of PCs to face off against a single enemy... but it is VERY common for a fighter to engage 1 orc/goblin/hobgoblin ect at a time.

And the other monsters just… politely wait for their turn to 1v1 the fighter? Why?

you can add things to make the action make sense and then I can add "but the PC has the ability to kip up as a reaction" see adding things doesn't help at all

No, literally the OP suggested a “monsters only attack if they have advantage” rule. Under such a rule, the optimal line of play if a monster doesn’t have advantage is to try to grant advantage to as many of its allies as possible so that they can attack. Knocking a target prone is a pretty good and readily available way to do this. If a monster is by itself, knocking PCs prone is self-evidently a dumb idea, and it probably shouldn’t do that; and since the OP’s suggested rule is “very soft” I think that’s perfectly acceptable within the context of the discussion.

then create an example... I even asked just that "Can you give an example of a time when it didn't disadvantage the monster" and Umbral came back with 1 target knocking prone and 3 others getting advantage... and I agreeed that was a good idea. But then you came in to pretend like that second example was the same as the first and I was nuts for opposing the first....

What are you talking about? I have never claimed that a single monster knocking a PC prone in hopes of giving itself advantage was a good tactic.

 

[iserith]

Another thing I like to do is have the monsters attack anyone other than the PCs unless they have no other choice. So it might be a pack of ghouls running through town attacking commoners or a dragon taking out buildings in a town with people huddled inside for safety. Then I set the victory/defeat condition to making sure a certain number of commoners or buildings survive the onslaught. That is often way more tense and exciting for the players than just slugging it out with the PCs and makes them think creatively about how they can turn the monsters' attention away from other things and onto themselves.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And the other monsters just… politely wait for their turn to 1v1 the fighter? Why?

that is a good qustion... since I said no such thing. stop putting dumb words in my mouth. I responded to a 1 on 1 example... if you want to stop talking about 1 on 1 then come up with something new instead of responding to me about the 1 on 1...

No, literally the OP suggested a “monsters only attack if they have advantage” rule.

I responded to a single example by saying as much as I didn't like the general rule that example made it worse not better.

Under such a rule, the optimal line of play if a monster doesn’t have advantage is to try to grant advantage to as many of its allies as possible so that they can attack.

seems descent as an idea, but still not extremally fun to me.

Knocking a target prone is a pretty good and readily available way to do this. If a monster is by itself, knocking PCs prone is self-evidently a dumb idea, and it probably shouldn’t do that;

but that was the example... if you agree it is dumb what are we arguing about? that is the example he gave.

and since the OP’s suggested rule is “very soft” I think that’s perfectly acceptable within the context of the discussion.

then give a better example instead of trying to retroactively fix the example I said was dumb...

What are you talking about? I have never claimed that a single monster knocking a PC prone in hopes of giving itself advantage was a good tactic.

but that is the example I responded to that you responded to me. so you jumped into the conversation about a 1 on 1 knock prone I guess to agree that it is a dumb thing to do...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Another thing I like to do is have the monsters attack anyone other than the PCs unless they have no other choice. So it might be a pack of ghouls running through town attacking commoners or a dragon taking out buildings in a town with people huddled inside for safety.

that is amazing advice. make the players have to defend

Then I set the victory/defeat condition to making sure a certain number of commoners or buildings survive the onslaught. That is often way more tense and exciting for the players than just slugging it out with the PCs and makes them think creatively about how they can turn the monsters' attention away from other things and onto themselves.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not going to keep arguing after this, but you are literally proving my point here. In both cases you get two chances to hit, so advantage is never better than trying to attack twice. But additionally one attack with advantage is worth less than two attacks without advantage because while both have the same chance of producing at least one hit, only two attacks offers a chance of producing more than one hit.

Yes, using an action to grant advantage once to one attack is generally a bad move, except if the attack you’re granting it to does enough damage more than your own attack would have done to create a net gain in expected damage output (such as the Kobold helping the ogre).

An upshot of this discussion though is you've really impressed on me that advantage is not as useful of a mechanic as I had thought because as elegant as it is, the math doesn't really do anything particularly useful.

I disagree. Turning a 55% chance to hit into a 79.75% chance to hit is a significant boost. Turning a 15% chance to hit into a 27.75% chance to hit is less useful, but it’s better than a +2 to hit, which itself is nothing to sneeze at. In the probably most-typical case of a 65% chance to hit, advantage increases it to 87.75%, which is better than a +4 to hit! Obviously you don’t need the boost as much in that case, but it certainly doesn’t hurt. And, this is all only considering hit chance. Another often-overlooked benefit of advantage is that it doubles your chance to crit (or slightly less than doubles it for a Champion fighter who crits on a 19+).

 

[Charlaquin]

that is a good qustion... since I said no such thing. stop putting dumb words in my mouth. I responded to a 1 on 1 example... if you want to stop talking about 1 on 1 then come up with something new instead of responding to me about the 1 on 1...

You agreed with me that the party facing a lone monster was relatively rare but that the fighter would often fight a single goblin/orc/whatever at a time. I was pointing out that, if the party isn’t facing a lone monster, the fighter can only do this if the other monsters let him.

I responded to a single example by saying as much as I didn't like the general rule that example made it worse not better.

seems descent as an idea, but still not extremally fun to me.

but that was the example... if you agree it is dumb what are we arguing about? that is the example he gave.

then give a better example instead of trying to retroactively fix the example I said was dumb...

but that is the example I responded to that you responded to me. so you jumped into the conversation about a 1 on 1 knock prone I guess to agree that it is a dumb thing to do...

You’re hyper-focused on one single example where this rule makes for bad tactics, to the point of disregarding the explicit statement that the rule is “very soft.” Yes, in that specific example, this rule makes for bad tactics. That doesn’t make it a bad rule, especially since it is soft enough that you can just… not use that bad tactic if you don’t want to.