Generalizing monster tactics/aggro

[Li Shenron]

I think it would be a good idea. Not sure if it would be better with keywords or with two lines in each entry... depends on how many possible tactics there can be (if they are more than a dozen, then I think it's best to write the details rather than keywords).

Also, it might be useful to see different tactics in each case based on grouping of a certain monster, so that for example a solitary orc would usually fight differently compared to a 3-4 orcs patrol or a 20-50 orc army.

But overall this sort of general guidelines I'd like much much more than having to roll or calculate "aggros".

 

[erf_beto]

Every time they say something about monster roles, it reminds me of D&D Miniatures Handbook. It introduces 'creature habits' to make random/solo play more interesting. Habits are one word descriptors like 'bloodthirsty' (attacks character with lower hit point), 'greedy' (give it loot to make it go away), 'distracted' (players decided whom it should attack each round), 'hateful' (prefers to strike a designated class or race) and 'mindless' (who attack the nearest), wich seems to be what the OP proposed.
I guess they'll have a mechanic for that in 4E as well (the Spinned Devil is a 'skirmisher' right?).

 

[Wepwawet]

I guess they'll have a mechanic for that in 4E as well (the Spinned Devil is a 'skirmisher' right?).

What's a skirmisher then? Someone who loves to skirmish and harrass people just for the fun of it? Like a bully?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think including general tactial guidelines, from what the creature attacks to what sequence in uses it attacks to when it breaks and runs, is useful for novice and experienced DMs alike.

"Aggro rules", though, are inappropriate in a refereed game when the Dm can judge and/or adjust what the monsters do. "Aggro" (and boy, do I hate that term!) is appropriate for computer game AIs, or board games, or other games where the rules must serve as an independent arbiter because you don't have a judge.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Hm, let's drop the "aggro" reference, then. I use the term only to mean "a guideline for determining targets for a monster's attacks." I don't mean to imply some kind of complicated points system, or hard-coded rules.

That out of the way: I do think a few shorthand tactics would be useful (aside to FranktheDM: I'm not a writer or game designer; "wolfpack" was just an placeholder example term). I think it'd be of benefit, both to novice and experienced DMs, to know that hobgoblins typically fight using general tactic X, and that orcs use general tactic B. Then, the monster description can get into details (hobgoblins spend actions to stabilize or evac their wounded, orcs let wounded lie where they drop and press on until fight is won or lost).

By having a shorthand for basic tactics, more room is left for the fun details. Especially is the monster writers find themselves wasting the same two sentences, unmodified, over and over. Example: "This monster attacks the creature that damaged it the most in the previous round". If that same exact sentence is repeated over many entries, it just gets in the way of useful info. It should be abbreviated to "vengeful" (or whatever), for the same reason that "Armor Class" is abbreviated to "AC".

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Another good addition to the tactics line: what does the monster do when it drops an opponent? Does it stop to feed, does it maniacally coup de grace its enemy, does it ignore the fallen to rush off and fight something still standing?

That sort of thing along with some of the other combat tactics mentioned can serve not only to help the DM in combat but also give the monsters personality. And -- give the players heebie-jeebies. If most ghouls immediately stop to feed (for example) or hobgoblins are known to finish off a downed foe with a knife thrust before moving on ... players will be a bit more cautious when facing them!