Guidelines on monster behavior and priorities in combat

[Ellington]

Now, I think we can all agree that we don't want an 'aggro' mechanic in D&D, but at my gaming table, the behavior of enemies in D&D has often been a source of argument.

"Why is that kobold attacking me? I'm way behind everyone else!"
"Oh yeah, like that bear would be smart enough to go for the spellcaster first!"
"Why do they always dominate the fighter with the low will saves? Metagaming much?"

As a DM, it can be hard to know how smart and tactical you can allow every creature to be, and what sort of tactics that creature should employ. Does a bear flee when dying or does he fight to the death? Do goblins have the necessary smarts to go after important targets first or do they attack the nearest creature, i.e the fighter?

What I'd like to see in either the DM Guide or the Monster Manual of 5E is a list of behaviors you can expect from hostile forces, as well as how creatures with varying mental capacities act in combat. A creature with the "defensive" behavior would focus on defending its territory but wouldn't chase creatures too far away. A creature with the "vicious" behavior would fight to the death and wouldn't stop chasing their enemies until either of them were dead. A creature with X intelligence might not be smart enough to go after spellcasters first, but a creature with Y intelligence would. A creature with X wisdom would know when the battle was lost but a creature with Y wisdom wouldn't.

A line or two in monster descriptions would go a long way to explain to DMs how creatures of a certain disposition would normally fight, and how smart they should be in combat. I, at least, would be thrilled to see some of that in 5E.

 

[Trance-Zg]

Well, it all depends on opponents intelligence and/or combat experience(level).

Any animal, beast, plant, nonintelligent undead, etc will hack'n'slash at first and closest target 99% of the time. Exceptions maybe with some one in party being injured so the animal will ignore first one and go for the scent of blood.

Pack animals(wolves) will all gang up and flank one opponent.

anything with intelligence 6(-2 mod) will try to do some tactical approach:
Focus fire, flank, picking easy targets, trying to avoid AoO's.

anything with 12+ intelligence, especially if in a party also, you can expect any possible spell and combat manuever combination that will make you go ballistic at the DM

 

[Kinak]

There used to be a lot more of this. I liked this information too, but it often got ignored. I think there are two reasons.

1) The DM has plenty to deal with already. The more tactically complicated an enemy is on paper (whether that's several different actions in 4e or running a spellcaster in 2e/3e), the less time you have to take care of actually making the enemy act appropriately.

2) The answers provided were often realistic. Almost everything runs away. And, really, of course it runs away! Half the time you have to wonder how they got into a fight in the first place, let alone fighting to the death.

But, for most campaigns, it's not really about making the combats realistic (just enough to grant verisimilitude). It's about making them fun. And the advice provided often just isn't fun.

The normal D&D kobold lair is a small dungeon with some quirky traps and kobolds that largely fight to the death and don't really work together. I think there's a good reason for that. Going into a "smart" kobold lair, with tiny winding passages, dead ends, traps upon traps, guerrilla ranged attacks, and a decent chance of no final battle at all would be hellish.

So what I really want is advice about how to make those combats engaging and how to use monster's abilities in fun ways (rather than necessarily the most effective ones). How can they be smart without depriving the players their chances to shine?

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Libramarian]

I don't think more rules is the best way to stifle this kind of arguing.

Except for the player-directed rule of "don't argue with the DM in play. Bring it up after the session."

The game should just be designed as far as possible so that the DM can play intelligently without producing weird results. For ex. Fighters shouldn't have the lowest Will saves in the first place.

I want to be free to play Tucker's kobolds if I feel like it. (The hellish "smart" kobold lair mentioned above).

 

[TerraDave]

Maybe guidelines are needed on who you choose to DM for.

 

[steeldragons]

I think this is a great thread/point.

I heartily agree that a couple of lines in the Monster's description could/should easily handle this...in a "these creatures generally do X/behave in such a manner."

This also provides, not just some flavor for the "generic encounter with this monster" but also a great deal of flavor for things besides the monster itself, both on a player and DM side. The player with the druid might note that "the bear that is wandering away from them when there's a camp full of food cooking is acting strangely" or the scout/ranger/rogue witnesses a pack of wolves walking in perfectly paired lines or the frost giant that sreams like a little girl and runs away without engaging the party "shouldn't be doing that...maybe there's some magic/something weird at work here."

When/if the description details that kobolds will panic and flee at the first death on their side...and then the party encounters kobolds that don't, automatically the encounter is more interesting..."Why aren't they running away? What [or who!] are they fighting for/guarding?"

I also hope for a nice set of guidelines/discussion in the DMG about this sort of "behavioral" stuff, on everythiing from "normal"/RW animals to goblinoids to "beastly" monsters (who basically act like/have the intelligence/some instincts of animals -a la an owlbear or a pegasus) to demons and dragons to other PC-race NPCs!

But more fleshed out descriptions of things in the MM will certainly not go unappreciated.

--SD

 

[Paxter]

To use the kobold lair example, the party could fight their way down through the narrow, trap filled hallways, and have skirmishes with small bands of kobolds trying to defend their home. The kobolds flee when bloodied. At the end, the party reaches the big open chamber where the chief and his minions (some bloodied) are prepared to square off against the intruders and defend their home.

When cornered and facing death (like these kobolds, most likely), they will either outright surrender during the final, epic battle, or the party can proceed with their bloodbath.

But what about the kobold young, old, or non-combatants? Spare them, or give them the sword? Play monsters as realistically as you want, and good role playing opportunities will show themselves!

 

[renau1g]

Now, I think we can all agree that we don't want an 'aggro' mechanic in D&D, but at my gaming table, the behavior of enemies in D&D has often been a source of argument.

"Why is that kobold attacking me? I'm way behind everyone else!" <- because kobolds are opportunists and would go for the lone wolf rather than attack the heavily armed and armoured guy that just cut the head off his brother.
"Oh yeah, like that bear would be smart enough to go for the spellcaster first!" <- If the bear was hungry it would probably go for the easiest looking meal (like say a scrawny, sickly looking robed guy). A lioness doesn't attack the healthy, alpha male gazelle, it goes for the weakest, smallest one
"Why do they always dominate the fighter with the low will saves? Metagaming much?" <- well, assuming the enemy is intelligent (which if they're tossing dominate out they probably are) they'd be aware that the rigours of spellcasting tend to leave one with a powerful mind, one that resists intrusion moreso than one who focuses more on strength of arms.

Done. It's very easy to explain their tactics.

 

[Stormonu]

The new MM should come with powerpoint slides of creature behavior flowcharts (with Flowcharts for Animal, Lurker, Artillery, Brute, Mastermind, Chaotic Kamakazie and Lawful Stupid).

--------
Though actually a one or two line statements of attack motive/tactics wouldn't be a bad idea in a MM entry combat section.

"Aggressive bears tend to focus on one singly easily injured individual at a time. If it believes it has killed the target, it will seek to drive off any others so it can dine on the victim - or flee combat once badly injured."