Generalizing monster tactics/aggro

[Zaruthustran]

I saw an apparent contradiction in two recent news items, and it sparked an idea about compartmentalizing/generalizing monster tactics:

I'm trying to find something to say that might help the DM with target designation -- for example, "this monster tries to eat the nearest enemy each turn" or "this monster attacks the enemy who did the most damage to it in the previous round."

Vs.

Aggro in D&D is a big issue. In early drafts, there were much more explicit rules for it, where monsters had to attack the fighter or paladin or a creature's tactics dictated that it attack the nearest foe. All that stuff is gone.

Obviously a balance can be struck between tactical suggestions and "explicit rules" for monster aggro. What I'm wondering is: with 4E's general trend toward "roles" and "silos": would it make sense to generalize monster tactics?

So instead of writing "this monster attacks the enemy who did the most damage to it in the previous round.," for each and every animal or primitive monster, you could just put "Tactics: instinctual". You could reference that single entry in the glossary, and find a decent overview of just what that term means.

Some other ideas for tactical generalizations:

"Wolfpack" (all monsters in group focus attacks on single most dangerous foe in effort to bring it down quickly)
"Random" (randomly distributes attacks among eligible targets)
"Tenacious" (picks one enemy, and sticks with that enemy no matter what)
"Bloodthirsty" (attacks whoever is closest/easiest to reach)
"Predator" (attacks weakest-looking enemy)

Some monsters would have combinations of tactics, or need specific elaboration. But I do think it'd be useful to have a bit of shorthand. Thoughts?

 

[Klaus]

I saw an apparent contradiction in two recent news items, and it sparked an idea about compartmentalizing/generalizing monster tactics:



Vs.



Obviously a balance can be struck between tactical suggestions and "explicit rules" for monster aggro. What I'm wondering is: with 4E's general trend toward "roles" and "silos": would it make sense to generalize monster tactics?

So instead of writing "this monster attacks the enemy who did the most damage to it in the previous round.," for each and every animal or primitive monster, you could just put "Tactics: instinctual". You could reference that single entry in the glossary, and find a decent overview of just what that term means.

Some other ideas for tactical generalizations:

"Wolfpack" (all monsters in group focus attacks on single most dangerous foe in effort to bring it down quickly)
"Random" (randomly distributes attacks among eligible targets)
"Tenacious" (picks one enemy, and sticks with that enemy no matter what)
"Bloodthirsty" (attacks whoever is closest/easiest to reach)
"Predator" (attacks weakest-looking enemy)

Some monsters would have combinations of tactics, or need specific elaboration. But I do think it'd be useful to have a bit of shorthand. Thoughts?

I don't think all monsters will have a behaviour spelled out.

But really, this is no worse than 1e and 2e monsters having a "Morale" entry.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm not sure that having keywords would be any faster than having a single sentence in the monster manual.

I think the designers should have keywords, to help them formalize what they're talking about. You know, so that "wolfpack" style monster A and "wolfpack" style monster B have a certain uniformity to their text when tactics are described. Its better that departures from a standard be intentional, rather than unintentional.

But I don't know that users need to be given the keywords.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I think a line or two per monster would not go amiss. What would be better, though, would be a general tactical primer, on the order of a page, in the DMG or MM. Beastial predators act like this, savage humanoids do this, highly intelligent things like dragons will do this. Logistics, Strategy, Tactics. Actually, strike that. Many players and GMs become sad and cry when someobody starts to use real logistics or strategy. Best to stick to tactics. But again, I think the purpose would be better served by a general discussion rather than repeating more-or-less rote advice for each type of monster in the game.

 

[Hussar]

I could live with that. Either one or two word descriptions or a couple of "tactics" lines included with the monster. We already have that for a number of monsters - This monster loves eating gnomes kind of thing.

Not a bad thing at all. So long as they make it very explicit that the tactics lines are suggestions and not hard and fast rules. If I want my pack monster to attack everyone instead of focusing, I don't want my players pointing to the rule books.

 

[Delta]

But really, this is no worse than 1e and 2e monsters having a "Morale" entry.

1E monsters did not have a Morale entry.

 

[HeinorNY]

I could use something as:
-This monster usually fights to death,
-This monster usually tries to flee when his Hit Points are below 50%,
-This monster usually attacks the opponent that hits him first in the encounter,
-This monster usually attacks the larger/smaller opponent first,
-This monster usually attacks the (race) first,
-This monster usually activates his special attack/maneuver/power before attacking,

etc.

 

[Hussar]

1E monsters did not have a Morale entry.

Really? Can someone confirm this? I could have sworn that the stat block in 1e contained a morale entry. But, am I confusing this with Basic/Expert D&D?

In any case, I wouldn't be too adverse to bringing morale back to the game either.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

Really? Can someone confirm this? I could have sworn that the stat block in 1e contained a morale entry. But, am I confusing this with Basic/Expert D&D?

In any case, I wouldn't be too adverse to bringing morale back to the game either.

I rooted through my dust collection and pulled out my AD&D and my AD&D2nd ed monster manuals and there is NO morale in AD&D, but there is in 2nd ed

 

[Henry]

What may be causing the confusion is that there WAS morale in Basic D&D, circa 1981. I believe it was resolved on a 2d6 roll? I just looked up my D&D rules cyclopedia, and sure enough, there it is.