Random Attacks in Combat...a matter of DM style?

[neg]

Okay let me qualify this by saying I have been a player for many more years than I was a DM, and I have blocked all my DM experience from memory. However, I do want to get a sense of people's feelings on this issue:

I have a DM that will almost always roll a 50% die to see what character a monster will attack, if two or more characters are in range. Doesn't matter the situation, the monster will attack one character one round, another character another round, and maybe return to attack the first character on the third round, or attack someone else completely. I have seen a great many DM's do this.

My question is do many of your DM's do it? If you were a fairly intelligent monster (and DM) wouldn't you want to concentrate and eliminate the enemy? Why allow randomness to play a part?

Does this measure a certain amount of Rat Bastardness in a DM?
Or are DM's letting players off easy at times, or more often then not? Do we short change encounters this way? How would this affect CR? I would love to hear opinions from players and DM's alike.

-neg

 

[Crothian]

I don't do anything like this. Depending tone creature and the PCs in range, it will attack one of them. A giant will more then likely go attack the toughest one. A wolf or preadator will go for the weaker one.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

My question is do many of your DM's do it? If you were a fairly intelligent monster (and DM) wouldn't you want to concentrate and eliminate the enemy? Why allow randomness to play a part?



-neg

In real life, you'd better believe I'd attack all of them equally, trying to protect myself from any possible harm.

In a funky system where people fight at 100% capacity until they drop dead, I'd definitely concentrate on one opponent.

 

[tsadkiel]

All other things being equal, I'll roll to see who the enemy attacks. If there's a particular reason why they'd attack a particular character (he's closer, he just crit'd me, he's a mage who wandered into melee for some stupid reason, he's wearing a pink beanie, or whatever) then I'll pick.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In the real world a savvy combatant would spread out his attacks. It is only in the funky universe of D&D mechanics that you would do otherwise.

The real downside of having NPCs concentrating their attacks is that it puts the DM in the position of choosing a PC to murder. There is no possible tactic that a player can use that will protect a PC from this kind of DM whim.

That is neither fun nor realistic. So what is the point?

In our gaming group, DMs spread out attacks unless there is an obvious choice. PCs that make themselves obvious targets tend to get more attacks thrown at them.

 

[Kershek]

The real downside of having NPCs concentrating their attacks is that it puts the DM in the position of choosing a PC to murder.

Er, isn't that what they're doing in the first place, trying to kill before being killed?

The onus should be on the PCs to survive, not the DM. If they are not properly prepared for an attack, or use poor tactics, they will learn to do better after they are raised.

 

[Celebrim]

This really depends on the Int of the monster in question.

If there are many more monsters than players, I tend to divide the monsters equally amongst the nearest players.

I always roll randomly for low intelligence creatures (say under 6). Once the target is decided, the creature tends to keep attacking his target until the target drops or someone does something to distract the creature. Very low intelligence creatures don't necessarily use the best tactics, but tend to select targets and fight instinctively. For instance, creatures with 1 Int may draw attacks of oppurtunity in thier single minded pursuit of a target or may not react to character presence (holding thier action) until a character shoots an arrow at it.

For creatures of intelligence 6-10, I tend to attack the flashiest targets first. If no character attracts attention to himself, I roll randomly.

For creatures of intelligence 11-13, I never roll randomly. These creatures always have some sort of plan based on thier abilities and the situation. Typically, the attack unarmored foes in preference to armored ones, concentrate their forces or missile fire, and try to keep the PC's off balance.

For creatures of intelligence 14-18, I play them as if they were my PC and freely meta-game with the rules when deciding what action they will take. Any cunning plan I can think of, I assume that the creature is cunning enough to think of too. The only limitation is I don't 'let' the creature know things that it couldn't know (like what spells are currently active or the favorite spells of the spell casters or the fact that the fighter has improved trip).

For creatures of intelligence 19 to around 26, I play them as cunningly as I can and I allow the creature to prepare for the PC's actions using information about the PC's that only I as the DM should know.

For creatures of better than intelligence 26, say Gods, I play them as above but if the PC's do something unexpectedly I secretly change the past actions or future plans of the creature so that this action was not unexpected. For instance, if I've written down that the creature cast Resist Elements (Fire) before the fight, and the PC's cast Lightning Bolt, then viola, my note magically changes to Resist Elements (Electricity).

Yes, this does mean that Int can directly effect the challenge of a fight.

 

[ForceUser]

I rarely roll a die to determine who the monster attacks, and if I do, the monster is usually unintelligent and there are several characters a similar distance from the creature. With low Int monsters I usually attack who is closest, with more intelligent foes I usually apply logic stemming from a mixture of "Who's closest?", "Who's the greatest threat?", and "Who do I hate the most?" When a PC scores an especially tremendous blow on a monster, the monster will often react, switching targets to attack the "lucky" character. Super-intelligent monsters will apply tactics most favorable to them winning and the PCs dying (sadly, it rarely works out for them). More than anything, I just try my best to roleplay the monster to type. Orcs will attack elves or dwarves first, kobolds will attack at range and flee when pressed, mind flayers will try to charm the toughest-looking characters to fight for them, while rust monsters will blindly charge the guy holding the metal weapon. It's really not that hard to figure out who a monster will attack and why.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Grumpy player

I must ask Celebrim - What about PC's with intelligences of greater than 26? Do you afford them the same flexibility and bonuses for high intelligence? If so, I commend your even handedness. If not, I curse your cheating DM hide!

 

[rounser]

A thought (which may well depend on the definition of wisdom and intelligence in 3E, which I don't have at hand):

Combat tactics of a kind such as choosing to concentrate on a foe until he goes down are perhaps more about wisdom than intelligence. Others would be intelligence, such as sophisticated thinking ahead (i.e. the wizard is probably going to cast a spell, so I should grapple her). Perfectly dumb monsters may still have wise combat instincts.

How about using wisdom as a judge of knowing when to run or when not to run? A low wisdom creature might flee even when they're winning, or fight to the death against insurmountable odds. A very high wisdom creature might know exactly when to get while the going is good, and when their side is on top.

And, for that matter, why not use an orcish chieftan's charisma score to see how well his minions follow his commands and act as a unit? His wisdom and intelligence may limit the effectiveness of his tactics, but whether they get followed is charisma based.

Someone who has the PHB handy may be able to check the definitions, but at face value, makes sense to me.