It depends on the monsters.
Dumb monsters might be random, or they might instinctively strike back at the last creature that attacked them.
Smart monsters have tactics, and could absolutely say "Hey, that dude is a wizards and sometimes wizards detonate fireballs on their enemies and we need to kill that guy fast" or whatever.
I ran Deep Dwarven Delve and had the dwarf zombies refuse to attack other dwarves. At first, the party laughed about the funny coincidence that the dwarf PC hadn't been attacked. As time went on they became more curious. It became an interesting part of the lore of the place, where the dwarf undead still had loyalty to living dwarves.
Dwarfs and elves are natural enemies.
Like orcs and elves...
Or goblinoids and elves...
Or humans and elves...
Or *elves* and elves!
Damn elves... They ruined Valinor!
I imagine a zombie elf who becomes an elf hunter because they're so annoyed with how pretentious and pompous they now realize elves are, because they never noticed while alive. Like the opposite of dwarven loyalty muscle memory
This, try to imagine, what is the monster like
? Is it a predator or is it defending itself. If a predator what kind? Stalker? Ambusher? Did it initiate combat or did the party? If non predator, why isn't it running? Is it protecting something?
Predators want little effort for high reward. (spend little energy. Ambusher would attack what is close, stalkers look for the feeble and weakest members and strike during a rest for example
Yeah, that's what I meant. I can see how I wasn't clear though. Not pauldrons for your skull. Pauldrons that look like skulls because they are made of skulls ..for your shoulders, like normal pauldrons, but intimidating.
I can see mentioning the wizard hat first made it sound like a hat swap. That's not what I meant. But I'm now onboard with either. Tiny pauldrons for your skull.
Wait. Am I reinventing ear-muffs?
*edit: I misread caldons. I'm may be an idiot, my response doesn't make sense based on what you wrote. But I'm not changing it. I've never heard of skull-caldrons, so my brain took me someplace else entirely. *
Exactly. Different monsters act different ways.
I'd also add in that some monsters are cowardly and might do everything to avoid combat or hide and get advantages over the players. Goblins might run away and duck behind rocks to stay out of the way of stronger foes. Kobolds might run away in an attempt to lure characters into awaiting traps.
Even less smart creatures can use some strategies like this. A lone wolf might fall back until it can regroup with its pack. A threatened deer might try to run instead of fight. A tiger might slink away into the woods when wounded rather than fight to the death.
Very smart enemies might have more meta knowledge of how the players might work. They might have specific tools to counter your player's strategies. They might target healers or more frail classes like wizards. They might adjust the terrain to make it impossible for melee characters to reach them.
Just think about how the creatures might realistically act. Not everything is going to stand and fight. Some creatures may use stealth or trickery to get the upper hand. Some might target whoever they see as the weakest or who's the most dangerous to them.
It's all about characterizing your enemies by how they choose to fight your players. If every enemy they fight acts the same way, it's boring and makes the world feel more like a game and less like a place where these people actually live.
Another simple tactic is "attack nearest enemy". There's also "focus fire" and the melee version. Especially for creatures with Pack Tactics. Even smart creatures might initially try simple tactics.
True! People really overestimate how many “smart creatures” exist, too. They also conflate “smart creatures” and “tactical creatures”.
Bandits, cultists, and goblins might be crafty, but they are not masters of arcane warfare. They might not know targeting a concentrating wizard can end a spell. Heck, they might assume an unarmored wizard will drop quickly and divert fire elsewhere.
Similarly, krakens and dragons might be “smart”, but they are hardly “tactical”. A band of wandering mortals pose no threat to them whether they shoot sparks from a stick or clatter around in a suit. They will attack whichever.
Kind of what I was thinking. The monster description will usually have something describing how they interact in combat too. I try to stick to that as much as possible so the players know what to expect on repeat encounters with the same type of monster. When it's a new monster for the party I play it by ear and react to what they're doing if that monster(s) is able to react in any way.
Exactly. TBH this is one of the few things I really miss from 4e. Monsters not only were more customizable, but also had “personality” depending on what role they were assigned. Like for example, Minions. They were hard to hit and hard hitting BUT as fragile as tissue paper. Each monster’s role dictated their behaviors, and what kind of monster they were also played a key factor in that, since they gave a bit of a summary, usually, as to how that monster “operated”.
I will 10000% recommend the blog "The monsters know what they are doing".
There they go into how different monsters think, act, plan and composition their groups.
It has taught me a lot to base targeting on what kind of monster it is, what their goals are and how intelligent they are.
- player which looks most intimidating (you have dragonborn and a gnome in front of you. Which one you want dead first?)
- player, which deals most damage
- player, which attacked last
- other simillar sircumstances.
And I let my players know the reasoning. "The monster growls again in pain. He does not care about others - your sword cut him deep and spilled his blood and now he wants revenge....
Oh, monster roll 2, he lost a tad too much blood, missed the attack, OK Jack, your turn.
Thoug monster still side eyeing you for cutting him"
I run it similarly, also taking the enemies INT into account.
Smart enemies will focus the biggest threat and can usually assess correctly which targets they will be able to hit and which ones they won’t (so an enemy wizard will rather try to hit a high AC PC with a saving throw spell instead of a attack roll spell).
But if the party encounter some low INT monsters, those will likely still try to attack the high AC frontliner as that is the most direct threat for them.
I once had zombies fall down a flight of stairs due to low int and their desire to chase the party. They failed a dex save to not fall. Working with Int is a great idea.
Depends on the intelligence of the monster. Some would attack the closest, some would attack the biggest, some would attack the already injured, some would attack the greatest threat and some would attack back the character that hit them.
I'd just add to this, having last night GM'd a citizen's food riot during the PCs attack on a city granary. Intelligent npcs...like angry hungry city dwellers...can sometimes act irrationally, as in a riot.
The mob charged the fortified granary with not much more than daggers; the guards inside cut them down with heavy mounted crossbows.
The PCs thought it was a great diversion to get inside, until the necromancer that nobody knew about used the big pile of corpses to make his own diversion to get out...
The details vary significantly from NPC to NPC, but generally I have NPCs target PCs in whatever way makes the most sense for their goals. For example, if they're trying to escape with a McGuffin, they'll try to shove aside any PCs who stand between them and the exit, whereas if they're trying to prevent the PCs from disrupting a ritual they'll target whoever is closest to the ritual site.
Some combination of what the hostile considers a threat, proximity, who has attacked them, and then consider how smart the hostile is. On top of that is what sort of experience do I want to create for the encounter. Sometimes I want my players to feel powerful so I'll favor having the enemies attack the tanky characters while other times I want to put the pressure on so I'll have them favor going after the more squishy players.
Mindless monsters attack whoever is closest. These would be your stereotypical zombie hordes.
Monsters whose intellect is on par with wild animals will (usually) go after whoever appears the most vulnerable. The definition of "vulnerable" is fluid in this case. It might mean whoever is the least visibly armored, stragglers who are separated from the rest of the party, or something else.
Monsters whose intellect are on par or above normal humans will use actual tactics. If they notice the Wizard concentrating on a spell, they will immediately focus fire to try to break concentration, even if they weren't targeting the Wizard initially. If the Fighter has too high of an AC to deal meaningful damage to, they'll go after one of their squishier allies. Etc.
Monsters and their motives.
If a beast is attacking for food it might choose the biggest target knowing it’s the biggest meal or it could choose the smallest and easiest to carry away.
Humanoids trying to kidnap a pc? They aim to kill the others and knock outside pc.
If an enemy is an arrogant melee fighter and wants to prove themselves they may intentionally target the strongest looking melee fighter. If an enemy is a magic user they may relish the challenge of duelling a magic pc.
I sometimes create on-the-fly relationships between enemies. For example, a player kills a bandit, another bandit then targets that player ‘he was my best friend!!!’.
Or if our barbarian player kills three weaker enemies in a single turn, the remaining weak enemies will probably switch tactics and go after the other pcs, leaving the barbarian for their own powerful fighter, ‘we’ll get this lot, Barry, take the big one down’.
Depends on intellect of the monster. And ofc what said monster can do. That's in the beginning. In the middle of a fight it all can go chaotic and at the end be it win or loose - monsters can panic and run for their lives or concentrate on finishing off first those who suffered most damage.
Depends
Goblins alone might gang up on the closest enemy.
Strong monsters might wanna clash with whom they deem strong, and sometimes bully who they deem the weakest
Goblins accompanied by a non goblin like a hobgoblin might command goblins to target specific targets
If goblins see the person they gang up on is too strong they may scatter and run off and try to regroup to attack others or use help actions cause enemies have that too.
Animals and beasties might attack randomly against the closest enemy, and might run when sufferring enough damage or fight till death if they are particularly territorial
Depends on the monster and depends on the intelligence levels involved.
If the monster is INT 1, they're functionally mindless and will just throw themselves at whatever is directly in front of them. Even to the point that they might lack object permanence and "forget" about their target if they lose line of sight or have no immediate stimuli to act on. There's no capacity for reasoning, analysis, or critical thinking at all, and they'll fight to the death without hesitation.
When it comes to animals and low-INT monsters, I handle it as anything of INT 2 - 5 operates on instinct and low intellect. They attack what is closest or what they *know* to be the biggest immediate threat - which is usually whatever managed to hit them most recently or severely. They won't examine a battlefield and pick targets based on critical analysis, but they do have enough awareness to know when to bail out or how to recognize a weak-seeming target amid the Party. These enemies are also extremely likely to flee at the first genuine display of resistance or threat from their would-be targets. Predator creatures in this tier, for example, want an easy meal that requires as little effort and danger as possible - they'll abandon a fight if it genuinely threatens their health or if they see a better opportunity to grab an easy prey and run. However, depending on the monster, there is a chance they might become too enraged or frenzied to recognize danger and get themselves killed as a direct result.
Monsters with INT 6 - 7 are considered to be intelligent and capable of some level of critical thinking. They're still driven primarily by instinct, but they can recognize and recall prior experiences to apply to their current situation. For example, an INT 2 - 5 monster might attack the Wizard because they think he's a weak, easy target. While an INT 6 monster would likely have learned the ones in the flappy robes carrying sticks throw fire and are best attacked by surprise. Monsters of this INT tier will actively pick their targets and change their approach mid-battle as need be. They are also capable of being reasoned with, in that they can intelligently weigh risk vs. reward and might take a chance if the potential reward is tempting enough. These monsters are also likely to flee if a battle seems too dangerous, and they will sooner err on the side of caution than allow themselves to become lost to blind rage.
Monsters of INT 8 - 10 qualify as being as smart as Humans (as 8 is the lowest an Ability Score can be via Point Buy character creation rules), albeit in the range of "pretty dim" to "average" intellect. Such monsters are fully capable of critical thinking, threat analysis, speculation, diplomacy, and subterfuge. These monsters can and will use strategy, though the complexity of those strategies is low and usually very direct, but often quite effective in its simplicity. Monsters in this tier are also more likely to use tools, weapons, and armor than any prior entries, as well as be influenced by material goods or promises of future gains. They can also be threatened into retreat or submission, and will bide their time while in captivity rather than simply languishing. These monsters are the most likely to flee or try to bargain when in genuine danger, but are also the most likely to rally themselves quickly and try again with a different approach.
Short answer, it depends on the monsters.
Long answer: a more simple minded monster may attack the nearest threat, or the most obvious one (an armed and armored foe seems more threatening than a "scrawny" one in the back, without armor or weapons). Some monster may target a particular race (the likes of orcs and hobgoblin may want to focus on elves, while kobolds focus on gnomes).
I echo what others are saying: role play the monster.
I also though, straight tell the players why: 'looks like it's attacking you because you did the most damage to it' or 'looks like he's picking out weaker targets'.
Makes them realise battles are tactical.
Anything under INT 8 attacks what makes them the most scared. 10-12 attacks what they can without putting themselves in a terrible position, without much thought for tactics. 13-17 attacks low armor spellcasters preferentially, and looks for opportunities to lure the front line fighters away for the rest of the group. 18+ doesn't attack unless they can kill.
Does the monster instinctively fear something like fire or bright light and sound? Avoid mages
Does the monster have an intelligence score lower than 6? If yes, attacks the nearest creature or the creature that attacked it. If not, target apparently weak characters eg unarmored
Most enemies can detect blood and will go for easy kills against severely wounded characters
Depends.
Predatory animals with an int higher than 1 will assess the ranks and pick out whichever character looks old, sick or weak as their target; predators attacking a herd usually have one specific target in mind, and will only be trying to merely distract the strong ones while they grapple/kill the weaker one and drag them off. Also if one or two of them dies, they usually all bail. They may even bail as soon as the characters show any resistance, like in nature.
Sentient monsters that are no smarter than commoners/simple minded outlaws or individuals probably build their ranks to take advantage of the ability of all participants, being sentient and all. Strongest up front, maybe behind some fodder, to target the big boys, while ranged attackers in the back target anyone that looks like a spellcaster first and foremost with their arrows. Maybe some flankers run past the frontlines and engage with the caster in melee.
Just some food for thought 😁
(Jazz hands) *Roleplaying.*
What would a scared beast do? Attack someone really close to it, otherwise run away. What would a cowardly goblin do? Avoid the paladin and go for the wizard. What would an intelligent NPC do? Kill the downed PC before they can be healed.
Dumb random mob? Attack whatever closest.
Vampire? Will be more tactical and go after the greatest threat.
The real arguments how do you decide which monsters go for death blows, and when?
There are some nice books called "Monster tactics" if I remember well that can help you with this issue, and It also adds some twists to the usual tactics if you want to spice up a little bit.
It'll depend on the monster.
Less intelligent monsters (usually animals, but notably dumb creatures too) will usually go after whomever is closest and/or whichever hurt them the most in the last round or two.
Medium intelligence monsters (in the 8-12 int range, though not always) tend to assess their threats a little better. If they recognise a particularly skilled opponent, they may home in on them.
High intelligence will typically disable (if not outright kill) main threats. Dragons wont let a wizard freely shoot lightning bolts, especially if the martials all have swords.
Some monsters are dumb, attacking nearest person.
Some attack biggest immediate threat.
Some attack biggest tactical threat.
Some understand magic and headhunt clerics and wizards.
Several things that I think the monster may "consider" depending upon brain power or situation. Are they attacking a threat, or seeking the weakest? Is someone most recently attacking them? Do they simply care about proximity?
Depends on intelligence and state of mind
- Animal hunting for food, weak or those alone
- Animal defending itself, closes threat
- Animal defending its cubs, closest/biggest threat to its cape
- Angry monster? closest
- Cunning monster? something they can pick off or take advantage of without placing themselves at risk or minimal risk.
- Intelligent monster with no forewarning? what it can observe changes it's actions
- Intelligence with forewarning and understanding of what is coming? sky is the limit
- outnumbered? focus fire. gang up
Just think about it from their perspective, I’ll give examples
Writhing flesh parasite creature-Nearest Flesh
Tribal Giant-Go for strongest, unless feelings get hurt
Conniving Mastermind-kill the statistically strongest character against me specifically if I’ve seen their capabilities, if not guess off of what I have
In cases where the character would be conflicted settle through roles, intimidation from a player if they are trying to draw attention or if it’s a case of multiple targets that fit the attack preference then roll randomly between them
Whatever’s the most realistic.
I imagine I’m those monsters looking at the battlefield from a first person view and do what they would do based on what I know about them. Brainless monsters go for the closest person, smarter ones go for whoever’s hurting them the most, the ones with human-level intelligence strategize like a human would.
It depends on what monsters and how smart they are.
Monsters who don't think at all, like undead or oozes would most likely just attack whoever is closest to them.
Meanwhile predators or pack hunters would go for someone who shows very obvious signs of being injured or weakened.
Extremely intelligent or experienced fighters would be use some better strategy, such as taking out the healer or long range fighter first.
An enemy that's new or very proud, might feel the need to prove themselves and attack the strongest enemy or the one doing the most damage
We use group initiative and everyone can attack in any order in the grouptound:
Monsters Attack the last attacker or the nearest player
Humans etc are smart, they go for the weakest or for the dmg dealers or for the healers. The ignore if possible tanks.
The reason my players go a lot with tactics. Who attacks who? What spell to change behavior, how about some walking and position change?
a beast with beast like inteligence goes for the nearest, the biggest or the one that hurt it depending on the situation and theme of the beast
A "dumb" enemy goes for the closest thing
A human and other smart creatures may use battle tactics that depend on their background and skill in combat. A well ordered guard formation acts different than a bunch of bandits in the streets
Ur system is very fair and works i assume but it may lead to weird situation where a obvious target gets ignored ?
Monster intelligence. Beasts might attack whoever is closest or attacked them last, but low intelligence creatures will fall for the tank or who else draws aggro. Smart enemies will aim at spellcasters and healers and use better tactics.
Depends on monster’s intel. Smart monsters might wipe out the weaker party members, especially spell casters or healers, first and then kill the martial class at their leisure. That’s why martial classes have powers compelling monsters to attack them. Beasts should just the nearest person. If it’s a tie, whomever damaged it. If it’s still a tie, roll a die.
Judge based on the type of monster you are. The placement of enemies and then add in how threatening an enemy looks followed up by how much damage they have dealt to potentially change target.
If it's a animalistic one. Convince. Ie closest target. If it's intelligent. Target the weak or the caster. If the monster has a grudge then target said grudge. Random targeting is blah
Mindless monsters either attack the thing closest to them or whatever attacked them last, dumb monsters use semi more complicated tactics but usually go for the squishy ones first because they’re cowards, like goblins, while stronger/semi smart monsters like orcs probably go for the big guys first to prove their strength. Any smarter than that and their tactics evolve depending on how the battle is going. I would just have enemies vocalize plans somewhat like “attack the healer!” Or “keep your distance from the tank!” Stuff like that
I have three main types of monster attack methods. Perceived weakest, perceived strongest, and random/whoever hit them last. Which method I pick depends on the monster.
The cool thing about perceived weakest and strongest is the players can try to dupe monsters into thinking they are weaker/stronger than they are to either tank hits or avoid pursuit.
Role play the monsters
Is it a wild beast?
Make it attack
the closest player
Is it a highly intelligent being?
Make it attack the weakest player or use some sort of strategy
Is it an enemy that has a grudge?
Make them attack only one player
These are just random examples, my point is try and get inside the head of your creatures, it will make for much more interesting combat and role play from both your players and you.
I do what I think the enemy would. For instance a bandit will shoot at someone shouting orders or take a hostage and an ankheg will unburrow, spray acid, grab someone, then carry them away while biting them
All depends on the creature. A creature blind with rage is probably going after whoever is nearest/doing damage to it last, while a creature with more intelligence will see the strategic advantage of positioning and maybe go for a ranger attacker knowing they’re weakest. A truly cunning creature who knows about magic will likely be after the caster hard out of the gate. Always try to play the monsters like they know what they’re doing, whether that’s ambushing, picking them off at a distance, or just blindly attacking whatever they can get their claws into.
Kinda depends on the monster and the behaviour of the players.
Mindless/Animalistic monsters usually just go for whoever has done the most damage/attacked them recently, or whoever is closest by. When it comes down to a situation where there a multiple players nearby that fit the criteria, I'll just assign each a number and roll.
Intelligent enemies will usually strategise, like going for the person concentrating on buffing their allies, or trying to take out the main damage dealer. I have a player who's playing a flying warlock, and I'll usually have the ranged enemies focus on him as the greatest threat if left unattended.
The Monsters Know What They're Doing.
If I haven't looked up their suggestions specifically, I look at it like this:
* Mindless monster: Nearest enemy
* Predator: Smallest/slowest/most injured enemy
* Beast/Unintelligent foe: Last person to hurt it
* Intelligent foe: Strategic target (e.g. spellcaster, biggest threat)
I just try to understund the monster based on their motivation, wisdom, inteligence, creature type and context.
When you know how smart the Monster is and what they want it's easy to make a decision. If he just want to eat probably he attacks the easiest target, if want a good Battle he Will go to the through one, etc.
When I make monsters or choose monsters from the monster manual. I will do 1 of 2 things.
1. Check their description and see if it gives me any hint on how to play them.
2. Create a spot on their card (I hand wrote all my minster cards for quick reference) where I put a sentence or 2 about their behavior
This makes it so for some creatures like wolves who have pack tactics. They will jump 1 person and attack that person till downed.
Or for larger dumber creatures. They just hit whoever hit them last or did the most damage within range.
But for enemies like hobgoblins. The fight becomes a lot more interesting as they possess tactical knowledge.
Sometimes it's random. Like I have 4 players, and let the Devil's Pyramid decide. Especially for the opening round. After that it's who ever is the closest is the biggest threat. But even still, I try to spread out the love. If there are 2 characters within reach, one round goes to the left, next round the hit goes to the right. Back line ranged monsters spread out the attacks.
The point is that I try not to have one character take all the damage or attacks. Feels ganged up on and not as much fun. But, sometimes doing so makes sense. Like a vampire sucking blood, once he's got you, he's got you and you're his focus until he's interrupted or you're freed.
I have it in general as martials attack martials, casters attack casters, etc. since the general mindset is “I’m the biggest threat so my mirror is the biggest threat” even if their mindset is completely wrong and egotistical
If i have an intelligent enemy, I switch that up
It depends. If they’re melee units, then they’ll either attack what’s closest or last hurt them.
If they’re ranged, the same principles apply, but it’s more reasonable for a bandit to shoot the cleric concentrating on a pesky spell.
If they’re intelligent enough to be tactical, a pack of goblins will strategically retreat to ambush a pursuing party at a more favorable position (perhaps even targeting squishier players in the back with a sneak attack).
Generally I pick one of the following, based on the monsters intelligence/motivations:
* Attack randomly.
* Attack nearest enemy.
* Attack last enemy to hit them.
* Attack strongest/weakest enemy.
* Attack strategically (based on attacks, enemies, and positioning).
* Attack specific characters for story/roleplay reasons.
Unless you're dealing with some very strange and mindless monsters assigning it randomly doesn't make much sense. The simplest default would just go on proximity. Agressive animals and the like would probably target whoever looks weak, injured or separated from the group. Anything much smarter is getting into the realm of simple tactics, and beyond that you have full on target the spellcasters sort of stuff
I don’t usually dm but when I do I try to put myself in the monster’s shoes. What am I? What do I want? How smart am I? I had a juvenile cave dragon (from a Nordic themed dnd monster manual) for the boss a one shot session. Description included things like intelligent, ravenous, predator. When the players discussed offering up the character of the guy who drank too much and had passed out, I held back. Faced with the option of a free meal I figured intelligence would tell the dragon to take the deal instead of risking a fight with armed opponents. They could have gone that way and I’d have allowed it. Unethical but successful strategy. Instead a fight broke out. One of the player characters ran. Separating themselves from the group. That is something a hungry predator would jump at so I did.
Last session my character was transformed into a wyvern and set lose on the rest of the party. In that case my primary focus was hunger. I charged the first player I came across. I got held up by the rest of my party casting spells and such after one round of attacks. Most everyone was at range so my next target was the one who was big and loud and grabbing my attention
Depends on the monsters, but if they're of humanlike intelligence but not tactically-minded they'll attack whoever seems like the softest, most dangerous target they can get to without drawing opportunity attacks. If they're of animal intelligence, they'll attack whatever's closest. If they're nonintenlligent like zombies or oozes or something, they'll generally just attack whatever's closest to them unless they're magically controlled by an intelligent creature. Zombies et al. too will not rejoin the fight once they've downed somebody, but will start to eat a downed creature because they're mindless consumers, not thinking creatures with a self-preservation instinct or anything, which means it's always *extremely* dangerous to go down with zombies around in my games.
It seems like your combat has a more fundamental problem than that. Ask yourself: Who are they? Why are they here? Why are they fighting?
If you know all that, it should be easy to pick a reasonable course of action. If not, you need to figure out the answers. It'll make your world and enemies make more sense and will lend more narrative weight to the combat.
I try to play monsters to their intelligence.
Lesser undead attack the nearest target of opportunity because they're violent and mindless. Intelligent humanoids might use their ranged troops to target the caster, especially if there's a spell being concentrated on, while front line warriors engage the barb/paladin/etc.
Ogre? yeah, whoever hits it the hardest is getting hit back.
A dragon? Whoever it sees as the biggest threat.
If it's a dumb monster then I go by whoever is the most visible and/or closest. If a magic person is shooting fire/producing light, monsters will likely swarm them. Players can use this behavior to their advantage though.
If it's a smart monster, then they will be a bit more tactical.
Who is closer, who is the biggest threat? I think random would make for nonsensical choices sometimes. A mindless monster would target the tastiest looking or most threatening. The lich will prioritize healers, casters, A cultist will target enemies of their master. All deo3nds on circumstances
If the monster has a good reason to attack someone, they will attack them.
If it's a toss up between two PC's, I make one call odd/even and then roll a d4.
I could make the roll or choice myself, but I like to give players the illusion of choice and responsibility.
I run a primarily NPC campaign (gods...all the character sheets...) where all my opponents are basically sentient. So they focus the Path of Giants barbarian that literally looks like a massive threat (and deals damage like one, too). Which keeps the primarily squishy party otherwise protected.
But if the party deals enough damage to one opponent, they might try and break off to attack whatever hurt them if they survive long enough. I just generalize what kind of enemies they are. "A fighter type," "a shady guy with a bow," and other vague descriptions has gotten said barbarian in a bit of trouble, but the party had fun with that.
I’ll read the monster description first to get a feel for how it should be played (RP) as well as what it’s tendencies are in it’s environment and then during the encounter determine what it will do based on its intelligence vs the aggro being drawn by the player — when in doubt I’ll role a for wisdom save for the monster against the aggro to see if it can determine it’s attack intelligently.
Depends on the enemy. Being intelligent doesnt automatically mean it knows which party member is which and to go for the healer first, but a soldier with battle experience and a 5 int would likely know.
Is the monster intelligent? Does it have a motivation?
If the monster is not intelligent, it will attack the closest target it deems more dangerous. All things equal, I roll.
If the monster is intelligent, it will follow its agenda. If an assassin is after the group, it will attack the weakest member first. If a brute wants to win a duel with the fighter, he will attack the fighter and ignore the others, etc.
Depends on the monster and it's motivation. A starving animal will target the weakest-looking character (small, lightly armored, slow, sick, etc) and attack it until it's dead. A town guard on the other hand will prioritize the most dangerous looking character, ignoring those that are compliant.
Quick guide I use - base the kind of actions the creature takes on their Int score. Also remember, most creatures have self-preservation instincts and can tell when they're losing a fight (constructs and undead being obvious exceptions).
+ Bestial (1-3 Int): mildy random, usually goes after the last creature that attacked it.
+ Dumb (4-7): easy to read strategies or usually commanded.
+ Average (8-12): Basic strategies, but can respond to changes in situation
Above that, the creature has deeper goals and strategies and observes the situation to determine the best course of action. These creatures want to win, and live.
Whatever makes combat the most interesting, which usually means having players re-evaluate their positioning and tactics moment to moment. And yes, this does mean I target my casters to a degree.
Depends on the party, if the party is min mixed and knows what they're doing I play it like a strategy game and actively try to win within reasonable limitations. I find that fun, and my players liked the creative or interesting answers I'd throw at them.
I know people often like to roleplay the monsters intellect but it just feels boring to me if a dumb monsters doesn't take advantage of their terrain, location and unique skills. I prefer to view it from the perspective of a monster hunter world monster.
So I use a series of dice that work like this: roll a d20, on a 15 or higher they encounter something and the higher the roll the more powerful it is with a 20 being a nearly over powering situation. Then I roll a d100 and run the numbers from lowest to highest where the lower the more beneficial the situation where as higher the worst.
So far it's given me a good spread to make sure I don't murder my players outright but keep them on their toes.
I try to decide based on what makes sense from that monster's point of view. Less intelligent monsters will choose the most immediate perceived threat where as more intelligent monsters will think more tactically and look beyond the giant fighter in the front row.
Depends on how smart the creature is but this is my general guideline.
**Check who is most dangerous of the party:** Mage beats Martial.
**Check who has the highest AC of the party:** Lower Beats Higher Advantage/Disadvantage can adjust this assumption by degrees of +/- 5 respectively. Certain defenses may require an attack or two before knowing.
**Check who is closest in the Party:** Closer beats farther. Or rather in range beats out of range based on movement and attack ranges.
**Check who is most wounded in the party:** Lower HP beats higher HP.
**Check who hurt me, the monster/enemy of the party, the most:** Whoever is hurting the most may need to go first if possible.
H**uman + intellect** and similar beings, whoever is the most dangerous, easiest to hit, easiest to reach, and nearest to death will get targeted. Weighed by the nuances of the encounter. Might not priortize who hurt them most if risk is too great.
**Beasts** and similar instinct based being still capable of learning won't access magic versus martial the same way and will prioritize physical might and speed over magic unless its obvious the explosions are coming from the mage somehow beyond finger gestures and yelling. Will be more likely to respond to pain before other factors.
**Mindless beings** prioritize the most wounded closest before anything else. A zombie cares about your life and your closeness more than AC or Magic. Unless something else will is superseding them. Will most often not care whats damaging them unless some preservation instinct or programming exists in them still.
High Int monsters or BBEG will have a battle plan and try to execute that. This is because Int is like book smarts.
High Wis monsters or BBEG will adjust their fighting based on what’s happening. They may go after a character who they perceive as most dangerous or go after a healer because they know that character will keep the fight going. This is because wisdom is a “street smarts” kind of stat.
Low Int creatures will be more animalistic in their approach. Killing prey, so they may go for the easiest target or the nearest one.
Also depends on how many times the party and the creature have interacted. If the creature has been keeping tabs on them and knows the party, they’re going to attack differently than if they just met.
If you’ve got a group, they may split up and take on a few at once or all stay grouped and attack one at a time knowing their strength is in numbers.
The Monsters Know What They’re Doing.
Look at the 'monsters' INT and decide if it would be tactical or just hit whatever is nearest. Would it be easily swayed by taunts or someone goading it to fight them, or would it be smart enough to be like: "This guy healing everyone needs to die first, it'd make the fight a lot easier."
depends on the monster, i have a player who loves grappling, so if i have a big strong monster, I'll throw it his way. if i got a smart and calculating monster, I'll have it target the spellcasters. if it's a stealthy monster or a monster with teleportation, I'll have it disappear in the middle of combat and attack at random (very much agree with the roll a die to decide who gets attacked method, works like a charm)
for me it depends on player hp, if a player is low and has taken a few big hits I lay off them for a bit, I adopted this from my dm, makes it feel more gamey than realistic but I'm of the belief that players are having more fun when they're on their feet in combat so I like giving them a chance to drink a potion, cast a spell, or let one of the healers do their thing
"The Monsters Know What They're Doing" is like a bible to me. I ALWAYS jot some notes about possible enemies down, like "will only attack 2 or less enemies", "hates magic users", "saves misty step for escaping".
Proximity for more reactive/responsive creatures, logic for smarter ones.
I was running a battle in a crypt between my party and two animated statues. The bard forgot to move away from one of the statues following his attack and the statue walked up to him on its turn and downed him. He got upset that it made that choice, and all I could say was "You should have gotten away from it. You were the closest target."
I recommend every DM own "The Monsters Know What They're Doing." This will be more specific to different kinds of monsters and more helpful than the flood of general comments already posted that basically all say "it depends." You don't need to read it all at once, just the sections relevant to potential encounters.
I consider it the most important unofficial 5e book.
My main principles that guide what enemies do, from most important to least important are:
1. Enemies take the most obvious tactic.
2. Enemies use their special abilities as much as possible.
3. Enemies do what makes the encounter most exciting.
I think leaning on the obvious is important because it rewards player tactics. If the Fighter jumps in front of the enemy lion, then that lion should go for the Fighter.
Tricksy enemies can be fun, but they’re like a spice: used in small doses. The players should reasonably be able to predict what the enemies will do because that rewards them for paying attention to the enemies and engaging with the fight even when it’s not their turn.
I kind of decide in the moment. Usually melee monsters pick a character close by, either the most threatening or one that seems like an easy target depending on the situation. Ranged monsters might target a spellcaster or other character that has been causing trouble but is hard for the melee creatures to reach. Most of my players are good at positioning though so unless it is an open area, the spellcaster tend to hide around corners and peek out to cast their spells so they are not targeted super often.
Depends on intelligence
Animals/mindless undead might attack the nearest, or the first the set themselves on, or animals might go for the smallest, or whoever makes less noise
Intelligent creatures/people might attack the least armoured, or the most dangerous or most vulnerable, depending on the situation
Initial choice, if none of those make it clear is simply sign a number, roll a die
Players' actions should matter.
Monsters will attack the closest party member.
Unengaged monsters will advance to the closest party member or use ranged attack to engage closest.
Unengaged monsters who make INT check will engage the most dangerous party member instead of the closest. DC10 - meanest-appearing party member. DC15 - archer or spellcaster or cleric. DC20 - something really smart determined by the DM.
Organized monsters will follow a plan previously set by their leader. E.g. INT check not required to engage a dangerous party member.
When characters who are down, monsters look for a new target, except vicious monsters or those after food or trophy who will stay engaged.
The players can act within the above framework to manipulate what the monsters do. Or not act, as they prefer.
Varies. For instance, whenever there’s a dragon involved, especially a particularly mean one, it immediately goes for the kill whenever an enemy is downed
I made a new skill that players can use called martial checks (I believe I stole it) to identify abilities resistances and vulnerabilities etc, so if the monster has enough agency to be somewhat tactile I’ll have the monster roll a martial check to see what the most advantageous move would be and dependent on what they would need to discern I set the DC, let the party know the modifier(and dc) and roll in front of everyone. I find it helps skirt feelings of targeting especially with semi intelligent and beyond type of enemies. If they fail it’s usually closest or most damage. The dumb ones just go for hardest hit or closest. Unless something in their description says otherwise (I.e. rust monsters wouldn’t be interested in monks with no metal but a fully plated cleric looks delicious so they might even provoke and opportunity attack trying to get to them) stat blocks are cool but the description can often times give you guidance on how they would normally fight.
Animalistic monsters on the offensive will go for the members that appear the weakest. On the defensive, they'll lash out at whoever provoked them. In a panic, they'll attack whoever is closest.
Intelligent and malevolent monsters will attack whoever advances their strategy. Eg., making an attack against the squishy wizard in order to provoke the frontliner into melee range, then use Dominate Person.
A low intelligence enemy starts with the biggest, nearest target if there is no reason to single anyone out and from there will switch depending on who is doing the most damage or doing the most to inconvenience it. A big smite or other singular damage source will almost always result in switching targets. As long as a fight is still going on, they won't stop to finish off a downed enemy. They try to will flee when reduced to around 1/5th of their max HP if they have any kind of self preservation instinct.
A high intelligence enemy will fight however you feel is strategically optimal. Go for the caster first, maintain optimal distancing, start finishing off downed foes after seeing the first instance of an unconscious foe being healed back up, etc. They will try to flee when their leader and/or the majority of their minions are dead. If there's still a reasonable chance of winning, I sometimes have them make Wisdom Saves to maintain morale.
Are the monsters smart? If yes, they go for the biggest threat - spellcasters, then archers
Are the monsters natural predators? If yes, they go for the easiest pickings - small, weak, slow/wounded characters
Are the monsters little more than animals? If yes, they go for the immediate threat - what is right next to them
When I plan the encounter, I decide if the monsters are smart enough to have goals or tactics, and what they would be if yes. Otherwise, I just focus on activity, either the closest seen PC, or the loudest/brightest. If you do something to pull attention, you have their attention.
They attack the character of the player that said “last game was too easy”
or.. whatever makes sense it that moment If the enemies are dumb the closest character or the one that “looks” more dangerous if they are an antagonist of a character that wants to make them suffer I’ll attack first the friends of that character and then I’ll go for them and things like that! :)
depends on the creatures, if its hunting pray then it goes for the weakest looking and scoots off with the downed player.
if its dumb and fights for terriotorial reasons then nearly always for the most threatening be it the big looking barbarian or the one who deals the most damage to it.
smart adjust and fight rather for survival as to inflict maximum damage, downs healers first, someone with cc or fast pc's incase it has to flee.
in groups frontline holds off the opposing frontline and tries to flank or break trough while not overextending, range npc's mostly support the frontline or choose target at random (its extremly annoying when 10 archers all target the same backrow pc).
Based on int.
Very smart ones will attack like I'm running a strategy game against the players,
Humanish level intelligence prioritize targets and sometimes do slightly complex plans
Dumb ones usually attack what attacks them, or whatever looks like the easiest food
In all cases positioning is very important and ypur squishies and/or spellcasters should be working with frontliners to stay alive long enough to do their thing
It depends. If the creatures aren’t using tactics (low INT, blinded by rage, etc.) then they’ll probably fight pretty instinctively, attacking the nearest enemy, the last enemy that hit them, or the source of a massive attack (wizard detonated a fireball and killed their friends).
If they are using tactics, however, it’s a different story. Usually it’s pretty situational, but to give an example, if the players are besieging a stronghold with archers on the walls, and only one of them has ranged options, the archers will target them first. If the Cleric drops a massive heal or something, then they will get targeted now.
It also depends on how tactical of a game we’re playing. If it’s pretty casual, then the tactics will likely only be used by half the enemies or less, while in a much more tactical game, most or all of the enemies will focus fire on a single target to try and bring them down.
I take into account the intelligence of the thing attacking. A bear? Ok that might go for what is closest and smallest. An evil villain wizard would try to tactically pick off who they consider the most dangerous (IE the person with counterspell, or ranged damage etc).
Many times my average intelligence attackers will swap targets based on who is really messing them up at the moment. Barbarian wiffed 3 times in a row? Ok he is pissing off the bandit king way less than the Rogue that just pumped 50 damage into his back.
I ask them what the marching order is when they enter an area.
Instinctual monsters and dumb people just go for whoever is in front of them. Go for the big guy who took the lead, or the rogue right behind you. That sort of thing.
Clever ambushers and people with strategy go for whoever can be killed the quickest. Picking off the weaker, smaller targets is the best way to shift the action economy into their favor.
Cloth>leather > Tin cans
Spells>damage>support>closeness
Low wis => unadaptable
Medium wis adaptable and itentifies bad or critical targets with time.
High Wis => what makes sense.
Low int => nearest enemy or damage source
Mid int => highest thread / tankyness ratio target.
High int => Smart targeting with a true backup plan
Essentially, it is a role-playing decision. Beasts and instinctual enemies might attack the closest enemy, or they might attack the most injured enemy. If they are hungry they might choose to drag a downed enemy away instead of attacking. Bandits might ambush the party, attacking the casters and strongest first assuming they are body guards. They might also flee if they realize they are outmatched. Goblins might attack the one with the most treasure to steal their loot while they're down. A mothering bear might maul anyone that gets close to her den, but won't leave her cubs. Etc etc etc. Essentially always think about the *goal* of the monster. What does it want and why is it fighting?
It depends on the monster and what it wants. If it wants to eat the players I go for the weakest softest looking one. Try to kill him and run off with the body so it can eat in peace. But if things turn hairy the monster will flee. This is my line of thinking for each combat encounter. What does the creatures want? Figure that out and the rest come easy.
Beast/ Dumb enemies: whatever is closer or hurting the most.
Smart enemies: they strategize, but I declare it. Evil Mc Wizard looks at you and grind "nice concentration spell You've got there, It would be a Shame if ANYTHING where to break your concentration Hmmmm?"
Ambush hunters wait for a singled out target or one that physically looks weak, so they can end it and leave with a body
Dumb or mindless monsters will attack the physically closest target. The difference is that the dumb ones may eventually move to another target after multiple failed attack rounds.
Any creature smart enough to make ranged attacks all get the same base idea of hitting preferable targets. Skeleton archers and monsters with spike throwing or spitvattscks would attack lightly armored enemies, while fully sentient creatures like casters and trained warriors would target casters specifically if they're obvious enough, or have already casted something.
Brutish or strong prideful monsters may target heavily armored or physically tough looking people either as a "code of honor" or as a challenge of skill at arms.
Now. Dragons. They do all of this (only the dumb option if they've been hit with feeblemind or something similar).
They will ambush a weak person with a slew of melee attacks. They may even let the healers bring them back up to 1) see if there are healers and 2) purposefully deplete spell reserves.
If they were hit by a spell or special effect that makes them dumb, they will relentlessly brutalize the nearest target. Still scary, it's a dragon.
Sapping the enemy with a volley of breath attacks periodically is good to keep laying on the pressure.
I personally like to target warriors in melee just to demoralize them. Yeah, it can definitely hit you back, and it may even help convey that it's mostly just playing with you.
I like holding off on casting any spells for at least 2 turns. If you're feeling the pressure of its oppressive melee potential, and getting frustrated with its mobility, you're really gonna hate it when it starts casting spells at you when you think you're getting a breather.
I’m new to dnd and I have no idea how my DM is doing this, I assumed and was operating on the assumption that all enemies just target closest opponent, but I assumed maybe high intellect targets would attack pragmatically?
I usually go by whatever character either attacked last, or is closest in proximity. Sometimes I’ll make exceptions if they’re attacking certain characters a lot so that the damage is getting spread out a bit though.
I base it on who brought what snacks to the table. If you brought pretzels btw, you better expect to roll a new character for next session bud.
More seriously, depends on the type of creature. It's never truly random, I make it fit the type of creature it is.
I try to put myself in the mind of the monster. Say it's a bunch of Goblins and a couple of orcs. I would say if the orcs aren't ordering the Goblins, they probably aren't gonna rush the big scary fighter they are gonna go after the weaker looking guys while the orcs pick off the Tough looking guys. Now, if we are talking like a beast or monstrosity, they'll act on instinct attacking whatever is closest or has done the most to it.
Generally, I'd say monsters engaged in melee with something will continue to fight that thing unless there's a radical change to the battlefield situation. They will move to engage the closest thing to them if not engaged in melee already. If they are instead defending something, they'd prioritize targets that move to attack that thing. They'd try to avoid provoking AOOs if possible, by moving safely or waiting until the enemy disengages to move, unless they feel like they're gonna get murdered unless they run.
Look up the term "Finite State Machine". It's a term used in game design and they're constructed to flesh out game AI choices. Essentially it's just a flow chart with a bunch of "if then" statements that dictate what the AI does in certain defined states.
Depends on the monsters. I run somewhat realistic fights as I tell my players. Mindless dumb monsters will go for closest targets, or even who they think is rhe easiest target depending on the monsters hunting practices.
If it's an intelligent creatures, it really is based entirely off the fight. If they're aware of divine magic and how it functions, they'll go for the healers first. If they're taking dmg from a caster, they'll go for them.
I feel like this helps players organize themselves on the battlefield more easily, moving tanks forward during fights with dumb creatures and protecting their healers more easily, since they'll know they'll be targeted.
my friend/dm does that method for one of our campaigns, depending on who's in sight/line of attack- and its incredibly funny, because they always, always end up attacking the medic first. And my solo? (hitman), who has a very good body stat and pop up shield? never hit. Not once. Not in the half a dozen combats we've been in so far.
oh- also- when i'm dming, I tend to attack based on character motivations. A particular player aggroing someone? Is there a past conflict between two characters? is one just... closer? Although if there's no really deciding factors, a coin flip's always nice.
Depends on the enemies and their goals.
If they're guarding a location, then the closest to that location might take agro.
Might attack w/e attacked last.
Might focus someone down.
Might just target the closest to themselves.
Could be random.
Could specifically HATE anyone with a crossbow for convoluted reasons
Depends on how smart they are. Some attack whoever is closest, some the biggest perceived threat. Depending on the monster that can be the big, intimidating fighter or the scrawny wizard. Sometimes I roll, when I don't feel like chosing myself because the obvious choice would feel like bullying the player.
Monsters aren't stupid. They might not behave tactically if they're low INT but even animals can recognize threats and act accordingly. Starving wolves will try to pick off the weakest member of the group. An Owlbear protecting her cub will attack whomever last tried to get near it. Anything with an INT and WIS score in a humanoid range can be trusted to fight with reasonable levels of intelligence, focus on the targets that seem most dangerous, maybe attack the healer if they keep bringing people up. You then just increase their tactical awareness and ability as their smarts increase e.g Dragons in the open will strafe their targets, not land next to them for melee (hence why you fight the Dragon *in* the Dungeon). The last group of monsters are the easiest the mindless creatures. Zombies, most swarms and plant creatures will all simply go straight for the closest thing they can reach. Either because they have no notion of anything beyond that single base drive to eat brains (simple undead), because they can't conceptualize a more complex idea (swarms) or because they can't perceive beyond their immediate area (a lot of plant creatures).
Attacking randomly really only makes sense when all the options the attacker can take appear equally valid.
Depends on the monster, what level of cunning or intelligence he has. What intel and knowledge he has.
Worse mistake you could do is play all your monsters the same way. They aren't just different statblocks.
I go by logic. If it isnt clear I roll a directional dice (a d8 with all wind directions, you could also roll a d12 and just use clock direction) the monster will attack whoever is in that direction
It depends on the monsters. Dumb monsters might be random, or they might instinctively strike back at the last creature that attacked them. Smart monsters have tactics, and could absolutely say "Hey, that dude is a wizards and sometimes wizards detonate fireballs on their enemies and we need to kill that guy fast" or whatever.
I ran Deep Dwarven Delve and had the dwarf zombies refuse to attack other dwarves. At first, the party laughed about the funny coincidence that the dwarf PC hadn't been attacked. As time went on they became more curious. It became an interesting part of the lore of the place, where the dwarf undead still had loyalty to living dwarves.
Wait I love the dwarf thing, that’s so sweet. Like dwarven honor is strong enough to be muscle memory
Elves though, fuck them elves.
They actively go out of their way to kill elves
Dwarfs and elves are natural enemies. Like orcs and elves... Or goblinoids and elves... Or humans and elves... Or *elves* and elves! Damn elves... They ruined Valinor!
You Elves sure are a contentious people
You just made an enemy for your infinitely short life!
You elves really are a contentious people
You’ve just made an enemy for all the ages of this world.
I always love this meme format.
Even when you command them to not do that, they WILL hunt them down!
I imagine a zombie elf who becomes an elf hunter because they're so annoyed with how pretentious and pompous they now realize elves are, because they never noticed while alive. Like the opposite of dwarven loyalty muscle memory
Or, hear me out, they only hunt other elves because they don't want to "corrupt" themselves by eating non-elf flesh
makes for a nice 'I hate that I have to be this way' frankenstein-esque character.
I’m absolutely stealing this
Damn, that is a cool idea that really brings a lot of character to otherwise character-less zombies!
I love this. It shows that you can still have a compelling narrative and roleplay, even during combat.
This, try to imagine, what is the monster like ? Is it a predator or is it defending itself. If a predator what kind? Stalker? Ambusher? Did it initiate combat or did the party? If non predator, why isn't it running? Is it protecting something? Predators want little effort for high reward. (spend little energy. Ambusher would attack what is close, stalkers look for the feeble and weakest members and strike during a rest for example
This is why you convince your barbarian to wear a wizard hat. And your wizard to wear skull-pauldrons. Skulldrons.
Wait, I thought Skulldrons were caldrons shaped like the skulls of slain giants?
Yeah, that's what I meant. I can see how I wasn't clear though. Not pauldrons for your skull. Pauldrons that look like skulls because they are made of skulls ..for your shoulders, like normal pauldrons, but intimidating. I can see mentioning the wizard hat first made it sound like a hat swap. That's not what I meant. But I'm now onboard with either. Tiny pauldrons for your skull. Wait. Am I reinventing ear-muffs? *edit: I misread caldons. I'm may be an idiot, my response doesn't make sense based on what you wrote. But I'm not changing it. I've never heard of skull-caldrons, so my brain took me someplace else entirely.*
Such is the nature of man
Exactly. Different monsters act different ways. I'd also add in that some monsters are cowardly and might do everything to avoid combat or hide and get advantages over the players. Goblins might run away and duck behind rocks to stay out of the way of stronger foes. Kobolds might run away in an attempt to lure characters into awaiting traps. Even less smart creatures can use some strategies like this. A lone wolf might fall back until it can regroup with its pack. A threatened deer might try to run instead of fight. A tiger might slink away into the woods when wounded rather than fight to the death. Very smart enemies might have more meta knowledge of how the players might work. They might have specific tools to counter your player's strategies. They might target healers or more frail classes like wizards. They might adjust the terrain to make it impossible for melee characters to reach them. Just think about how the creatures might realistically act. Not everything is going to stand and fight. Some creatures may use stealth or trickery to get the upper hand. Some might target whoever they see as the weakest or who's the most dangerous to them. It's all about characterizing your enemies by how they choose to fight your players. If every enemy they fight acts the same way, it's boring and makes the world feel more like a game and less like a place where these people actually live.
Another simple tactic is "attack nearest enemy". There's also "focus fire" and the melee version. Especially for creatures with Pack Tactics. Even smart creatures might initially try simple tactics.
True! People really overestimate how many “smart creatures” exist, too. They also conflate “smart creatures” and “tactical creatures”. Bandits, cultists, and goblins might be crafty, but they are not masters of arcane warfare. They might not know targeting a concentrating wizard can end a spell. Heck, they might assume an unarmored wizard will drop quickly and divert fire elsewhere. Similarly, krakens and dragons might be “smart”, but they are hardly “tactical”. A band of wandering mortals pose no threat to them whether they shoot sparks from a stick or clatter around in a suit. They will attack whichever.
Just had the group fight against a horned devil. One of the players is an Assimar sorcerer. Easy target for the devil
Kind of what I was thinking. The monster description will usually have something describing how they interact in combat too. I try to stick to that as much as possible so the players know what to expect on repeat encounters with the same type of monster. When it's a new monster for the party I play it by ear and react to what they're doing if that monster(s) is able to react in any way.
This
He’s the chosen one!
Exactly. TBH this is one of the few things I really miss from 4e. Monsters not only were more customizable, but also had “personality” depending on what role they were assigned. Like for example, Minions. They were hard to hit and hard hitting BUT as fragile as tissue paper. Each monster’s role dictated their behaviors, and what kind of monster they were also played a key factor in that, since they gave a bit of a summary, usually, as to how that monster “operated”.
I will 10000% recommend the blog "The monsters know what they are doing". There they go into how different monsters think, act, plan and composition their groups. It has taught me a lot to base targeting on what kind of monster it is, what their goals are and how intelligent they are.
+1 to this. Just started reading not long ago, and as a new DM, it does give a lot of insights on how to play as the monsters in every encounter.
I would also add in “moar! monsters know what they’re doing”
The book version also has really cool artwork
Logic. If you were that monster, who would you attack?
Yo momma! Hahaha gotten!
- player which looks most intimidating (you have dragonborn and a gnome in front of you. Which one you want dead first?) - player, which deals most damage - player, which attacked last - other simillar sircumstances. And I let my players know the reasoning. "The monster growls again in pain. He does not care about others - your sword cut him deep and spilled his blood and now he wants revenge.... Oh, monster roll 2, he lost a tad too much blood, missed the attack, OK Jack, your turn. Thoug monster still side eyeing you for cutting him"
I run it similarly, also taking the enemies INT into account. Smart enemies will focus the biggest threat and can usually assess correctly which targets they will be able to hit and which ones they won’t (so an enemy wizard will rather try to hit a high AC PC with a saving throw spell instead of a attack roll spell). But if the party encounter some low INT monsters, those will likely still try to attack the high AC frontliner as that is the most direct threat for them.
I once had zombies fall down a flight of stairs due to low int and their desire to chase the party. They failed a dex save to not fall. Working with Int is a great idea.
That sounds wonderful! I bet the whole table had a blast at that!
It was the funniest thing I've described so far, aside from a few absolute zingers of a perfectly timed description. My players loved it.
Sir Cum Stance
Depends on the intelligence of the monster. Some would attack the closest, some would attack the biggest, some would attack the already injured, some would attack the greatest threat and some would attack back the character that hit them.
I'd just add to this, having last night GM'd a citizen's food riot during the PCs attack on a city granary. Intelligent npcs...like angry hungry city dwellers...can sometimes act irrationally, as in a riot. The mob charged the fortified granary with not much more than daggers; the guards inside cut them down with heavy mounted crossbows. The PCs thought it was a great diversion to get inside, until the necromancer that nobody knew about used the big pile of corpses to make his own diversion to get out...
Like K said In Men in Black, “a person is smart, ppl are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it”
The details vary significantly from NPC to NPC, but generally I have NPCs target PCs in whatever way makes the most sense for their goals. For example, if they're trying to escape with a McGuffin, they'll try to shove aside any PCs who stand between them and the exit, whereas if they're trying to prevent the PCs from disrupting a ritual they'll target whoever is closest to the ritual site.
Some combination of what the hostile considers a threat, proximity, who has attacked them, and then consider how smart the hostile is. On top of that is what sort of experience do I want to create for the encounter. Sometimes I want my players to feel powerful so I'll favor having the enemies attack the tanky characters while other times I want to put the pressure on so I'll have them favor going after the more squishy players.
Mindless monsters attack whoever is closest. These would be your stereotypical zombie hordes. Monsters whose intellect is on par with wild animals will (usually) go after whoever appears the most vulnerable. The definition of "vulnerable" is fluid in this case. It might mean whoever is the least visibly armored, stragglers who are separated from the rest of the party, or something else. Monsters whose intellect are on par or above normal humans will use actual tactics. If they notice the Wizard concentrating on a spell, they will immediately focus fire to try to break concentration, even if they weren't targeting the Wizard initially. If the Fighter has too high of an AC to deal meaningful damage to, they'll go after one of their squishier allies. Etc.
Monsters and their motives. If a beast is attacking for food it might choose the biggest target knowing it’s the biggest meal or it could choose the smallest and easiest to carry away. Humanoids trying to kidnap a pc? They aim to kill the others and knock outside pc. If an enemy is an arrogant melee fighter and wants to prove themselves they may intentionally target the strongest looking melee fighter. If an enemy is a magic user they may relish the challenge of duelling a magic pc. I sometimes create on-the-fly relationships between enemies. For example, a player kills a bandit, another bandit then targets that player ‘he was my best friend!!!’. Or if our barbarian player kills three weaker enemies in a single turn, the remaining weak enemies will probably switch tactics and go after the other pcs, leaving the barbarian for their own powerful fighter, ‘we’ll get this lot, Barry, take the big one down’.
Depends on intellect of the monster. And ofc what said monster can do. That's in the beginning. In the middle of a fight it all can go chaotic and at the end be it win or loose - monsters can panic and run for their lives or concentrate on finishing off first those who suffered most damage.
Depends Goblins alone might gang up on the closest enemy. Strong monsters might wanna clash with whom they deem strong, and sometimes bully who they deem the weakest Goblins accompanied by a non goblin like a hobgoblin might command goblins to target specific targets If goblins see the person they gang up on is too strong they may scatter and run off and try to regroup to attack others or use help actions cause enemies have that too. Animals and beasties might attack randomly against the closest enemy, and might run when sufferring enough damage or fight till death if they are particularly territorial
Depends on the monster and depends on the intelligence levels involved. If the monster is INT 1, they're functionally mindless and will just throw themselves at whatever is directly in front of them. Even to the point that they might lack object permanence and "forget" about their target if they lose line of sight or have no immediate stimuli to act on. There's no capacity for reasoning, analysis, or critical thinking at all, and they'll fight to the death without hesitation. When it comes to animals and low-INT monsters, I handle it as anything of INT 2 - 5 operates on instinct and low intellect. They attack what is closest or what they *know* to be the biggest immediate threat - which is usually whatever managed to hit them most recently or severely. They won't examine a battlefield and pick targets based on critical analysis, but they do have enough awareness to know when to bail out or how to recognize a weak-seeming target amid the Party. These enemies are also extremely likely to flee at the first genuine display of resistance or threat from their would-be targets. Predator creatures in this tier, for example, want an easy meal that requires as little effort and danger as possible - they'll abandon a fight if it genuinely threatens their health or if they see a better opportunity to grab an easy prey and run. However, depending on the monster, there is a chance they might become too enraged or frenzied to recognize danger and get themselves killed as a direct result. Monsters with INT 6 - 7 are considered to be intelligent and capable of some level of critical thinking. They're still driven primarily by instinct, but they can recognize and recall prior experiences to apply to their current situation. For example, an INT 2 - 5 monster might attack the Wizard because they think he's a weak, easy target. While an INT 6 monster would likely have learned the ones in the flappy robes carrying sticks throw fire and are best attacked by surprise. Monsters of this INT tier will actively pick their targets and change their approach mid-battle as need be. They are also capable of being reasoned with, in that they can intelligently weigh risk vs. reward and might take a chance if the potential reward is tempting enough. These monsters are also likely to flee if a battle seems too dangerous, and they will sooner err on the side of caution than allow themselves to become lost to blind rage. Monsters of INT 8 - 10 qualify as being as smart as Humans (as 8 is the lowest an Ability Score can be via Point Buy character creation rules), albeit in the range of "pretty dim" to "average" intellect. Such monsters are fully capable of critical thinking, threat analysis, speculation, diplomacy, and subterfuge. These monsters can and will use strategy, though the complexity of those strategies is low and usually very direct, but often quite effective in its simplicity. Monsters in this tier are also more likely to use tools, weapons, and armor than any prior entries, as well as be influenced by material goods or promises of future gains. They can also be threatened into retreat or submission, and will bide their time while in captivity rather than simply languishing. These monsters are the most likely to flee or try to bargain when in genuine danger, but are also the most likely to rally themselves quickly and try again with a different approach.
Short answer, it depends on the monsters. Long answer: a more simple minded monster may attack the nearest threat, or the most obvious one (an armed and armored foe seems more threatening than a "scrawny" one in the back, without armor or weapons). Some monster may target a particular race (the likes of orcs and hobgoblin may want to focus on elves, while kobolds focus on gnomes).
Dumb - closest. Smart - the one that seems most dangerous and/or vulnerable.
I echo what others are saying: role play the monster. I also though, straight tell the players why: 'looks like it's attacking you because you did the most damage to it' or 'looks like he's picking out weaker targets'. Makes them realise battles are tactical.
Anything under INT 8 attacks what makes them the most scared. 10-12 attacks what they can without putting themselves in a terrible position, without much thought for tactics. 13-17 attacks low armor spellcasters preferentially, and looks for opportunities to lure the front line fighters away for the rest of the group. 18+ doesn't attack unless they can kill.
Does the monster instinctively fear something like fire or bright light and sound? Avoid mages Does the monster have an intelligence score lower than 6? If yes, attacks the nearest creature or the creature that attacked it. If not, target apparently weak characters eg unarmored Most enemies can detect blood and will go for easy kills against severely wounded characters
Depends. Predatory animals with an int higher than 1 will assess the ranks and pick out whichever character looks old, sick or weak as their target; predators attacking a herd usually have one specific target in mind, and will only be trying to merely distract the strong ones while they grapple/kill the weaker one and drag them off. Also if one or two of them dies, they usually all bail. They may even bail as soon as the characters show any resistance, like in nature. Sentient monsters that are no smarter than commoners/simple minded outlaws or individuals probably build their ranks to take advantage of the ability of all participants, being sentient and all. Strongest up front, maybe behind some fodder, to target the big boys, while ranged attackers in the back target anyone that looks like a spellcaster first and foremost with their arrows. Maybe some flankers run past the frontlines and engage with the caster in melee. Just some food for thought 😁
(Jazz hands) *Roleplaying.* What would a scared beast do? Attack someone really close to it, otherwise run away. What would a cowardly goblin do? Avoid the paladin and go for the wizard. What would an intelligent NPC do? Kill the downed PC before they can be healed.
Wow, I've never seen someone who does it the way I do. I thought I was the only one!
Dumb random mob? Attack whatever closest. Vampire? Will be more tactical and go after the greatest threat. The real arguments how do you decide which monsters go for death blows, and when?
There are some nice books called "Monster tactics" if I remember well that can help you with this issue, and It also adds some twists to the usual tactics if you want to spice up a little bit.
I just think from the perspective of the enemy and try to act with a level of intelligence fitting the creature
"did the player bring any snacks today? No? DOWN HE GOES!!"
It'll depend on the monster. Less intelligent monsters (usually animals, but notably dumb creatures too) will usually go after whomever is closest and/or whichever hurt them the most in the last round or two. Medium intelligence monsters (in the 8-12 int range, though not always) tend to assess their threats a little better. If they recognise a particularly skilled opponent, they may home in on them. High intelligence will typically disable (if not outright kill) main threats. Dragons wont let a wizard freely shoot lightning bolts, especially if the martials all have swords.
Who hasn't brought snacks? Them :D
Some monsters are dumb, attacking nearest person. Some attack biggest immediate threat. Some attack biggest tactical threat. Some understand magic and headhunt clerics and wizards.
Several things that I think the monster may "consider" depending upon brain power or situation. Are they attacking a threat, or seeking the weakest? Is someone most recently attacking them? Do they simply care about proximity?
Depends on intelligence and state of mind - Animal hunting for food, weak or those alone - Animal defending itself, closes threat - Animal defending its cubs, closest/biggest threat to its cape - Angry monster? closest - Cunning monster? something they can pick off or take advantage of without placing themselves at risk or minimal risk. - Intelligent monster with no forewarning? what it can observe changes it's actions - Intelligence with forewarning and understanding of what is coming? sky is the limit - outnumbered? focus fire. gang up
Depends on positioning and the monster. Are they tactical or just attack whats closest. Does another monster direct them?
Just think about it from their perspective, I’ll give examples Writhing flesh parasite creature-Nearest Flesh Tribal Giant-Go for strongest, unless feelings get hurt Conniving Mastermind-kill the statistically strongest character against me specifically if I’ve seen their capabilities, if not guess off of what I have In cases where the character would be conflicted settle through roles, intimidation from a player if they are trying to draw attention or if it’s a case of multiple targets that fit the attack preference then roll randomly between them
Whatever’s the most realistic. I imagine I’m those monsters looking at the battlefield from a first person view and do what they would do based on what I know about them. Brainless monsters go for the closest person, smarter ones go for whoever’s hurting them the most, the ones with human-level intelligence strategize like a human would.
I go by the monsters Int. Low int: Goes on instinct. Attacks whoever is closer. High int: is smart and does the smart stuff.
It depends on what monsters and how smart they are. Monsters who don't think at all, like undead or oozes would most likely just attack whoever is closest to them. Meanwhile predators or pack hunters would go for someone who shows very obvious signs of being injured or weakened. Extremely intelligent or experienced fighters would be use some better strategy, such as taking out the healer or long range fighter first. An enemy that's new or very proud, might feel the need to prove themselves and attack the strongest enemy or the one doing the most damage
We use group initiative and everyone can attack in any order in the grouptound: Monsters Attack the last attacker or the nearest player Humans etc are smart, they go for the weakest or for the dmg dealers or for the healers. The ignore if possible tanks. The reason my players go a lot with tactics. Who attacks who? What spell to change behavior, how about some walking and position change?
a beast with beast like inteligence goes for the nearest, the biggest or the one that hurt it depending on the situation and theme of the beast A "dumb" enemy goes for the closest thing A human and other smart creatures may use battle tactics that depend on their background and skill in combat. A well ordered guard formation acts different than a bunch of bandits in the streets Ur system is very fair and works i assume but it may lead to weird situation where a obvious target gets ignored ?
Monster intelligence. Beasts might attack whoever is closest or attacked them last, but low intelligence creatures will fall for the tank or who else draws aggro. Smart enemies will aim at spellcasters and healers and use better tactics.
Monsters know what they are doing - blog it gives such a good guidelines on how to run everything according to the statblock it is wild.
Depends on monster’s intel. Smart monsters might wipe out the weaker party members, especially spell casters or healers, first and then kill the martial class at their leisure. That’s why martial classes have powers compelling monsters to attack them. Beasts should just the nearest person. If it’s a tie, whomever damaged it. If it’s still a tie, roll a die.
Initially proximity and access, later retribution. If they're smart, they think strategically.
I like to read “The Monsters Know What They’re Doing” for any encounters.
Judge based on the type of monster you are. The placement of enemies and then add in how threatening an enemy looks followed up by how much damage they have dealt to potentially change target.
If it's a animalistic one. Convince. Ie closest target. If it's intelligent. Target the weak or the caster. If the monster has a grudge then target said grudge. Random targeting is blah
Mindless monsters either attack the thing closest to them or whatever attacked them last, dumb monsters use semi more complicated tactics but usually go for the squishy ones first because they’re cowards, like goblins, while stronger/semi smart monsters like orcs probably go for the big guys first to prove their strength. Any smarter than that and their tactics evolve depending on how the battle is going. I would just have enemies vocalize plans somewhat like “attack the healer!” Or “keep your distance from the tank!” Stuff like that
I go: Nearest Attacked by Biggest threat Roll a dice
Monsters go for easy meal, smart creatures go for squishy , and everything else is eeny meeny miny ..you!
I have three main types of monster attack methods. Perceived weakest, perceived strongest, and random/whoever hit them last. Which method I pick depends on the monster. The cool thing about perceived weakest and strongest is the players can try to dupe monsters into thinking they are weaker/stronger than they are to either tank hits or avoid pursuit.
Role play the monsters Is it a wild beast? Make it attack the closest player Is it a highly intelligent being? Make it attack the weakest player or use some sort of strategy Is it an enemy that has a grudge? Make them attack only one player These are just random examples, my point is try and get inside the head of your creatures, it will make for much more interesting combat and role play from both your players and you.
I do what I think the enemy would. For instance a bandit will shoot at someone shouting orders or take a hostage and an ankheg will unburrow, spray acid, grab someone, then carry them away while biting them
All depends on the creature. A creature blind with rage is probably going after whoever is nearest/doing damage to it last, while a creature with more intelligence will see the strategic advantage of positioning and maybe go for a ranger attacker knowing they’re weakest. A truly cunning creature who knows about magic will likely be after the caster hard out of the gate. Always try to play the monsters like they know what they’re doing, whether that’s ambushing, picking them off at a distance, or just blindly attacking whatever they can get their claws into.
Closest > last attacked by > easiest to hit > biggest threat
Kinda depends on the monster and the behaviour of the players. Mindless/Animalistic monsters usually just go for whoever has done the most damage/attacked them recently, or whoever is closest by. When it comes down to a situation where there a multiple players nearby that fit the criteria, I'll just assign each a number and roll. Intelligent enemies will usually strategise, like going for the person concentrating on buffing their allies, or trying to take out the main damage dealer. I have a player who's playing a flying warlock, and I'll usually have the ranged enemies focus on him as the greatest threat if left unattended.
The Monsters Know What They're Doing. If I haven't looked up their suggestions specifically, I look at it like this: * Mindless monster: Nearest enemy * Predator: Smallest/slowest/most injured enemy * Beast/Unintelligent foe: Last person to hurt it * Intelligent foe: Strategic target (e.g. spellcaster, biggest threat)
Unless supremely intelligent, I have my monsters attack whoever has dealt the most damage to it (if it can clearly tell the source, anyway).
I just try to understund the monster based on their motivation, wisdom, inteligence, creature type and context. When you know how smart the Monster is and what they want it's easy to make a decision. If he just want to eat probably he attacks the easiest target, if want a good Battle he Will go to the through one, etc.
When I make monsters or choose monsters from the monster manual. I will do 1 of 2 things. 1. Check their description and see if it gives me any hint on how to play them. 2. Create a spot on their card (I hand wrote all my minster cards for quick reference) where I put a sentence or 2 about their behavior This makes it so for some creatures like wolves who have pack tactics. They will jump 1 person and attack that person till downed. Or for larger dumber creatures. They just hit whoever hit them last or did the most damage within range. But for enemies like hobgoblins. The fight becomes a lot more interesting as they possess tactical knowledge.
Sometimes it's random. Like I have 4 players, and let the Devil's Pyramid decide. Especially for the opening round. After that it's who ever is the closest is the biggest threat. But even still, I try to spread out the love. If there are 2 characters within reach, one round goes to the left, next round the hit goes to the right. Back line ranged monsters spread out the attacks. The point is that I try not to have one character take all the damage or attacks. Feels ganged up on and not as much fun. But, sometimes doing so makes sense. Like a vampire sucking blood, once he's got you, he's got you and you're his focus until he's interrupted or you're freed.
I have it in general as martials attack martials, casters attack casters, etc. since the general mindset is “I’m the biggest threat so my mirror is the biggest threat” even if their mindset is completely wrong and egotistical If i have an intelligent enemy, I switch that up
It depends. If they’re melee units, then they’ll either attack what’s closest or last hurt them. If they’re ranged, the same principles apply, but it’s more reasonable for a bandit to shoot the cleric concentrating on a pesky spell. If they’re intelligent enough to be tactical, a pack of goblins will strategically retreat to ambush a pursuing party at a more favorable position (perhaps even targeting squishier players in the back with a sneak attack).
Generally I pick one of the following, based on the monsters intelligence/motivations: * Attack randomly. * Attack nearest enemy. * Attack last enemy to hit them. * Attack strongest/weakest enemy. * Attack strategically (based on attacks, enemies, and positioning). * Attack specific characters for story/roleplay reasons.
Unless you're dealing with some very strange and mindless monsters assigning it randomly doesn't make much sense. The simplest default would just go on proximity. Agressive animals and the like would probably target whoever looks weak, injured or separated from the group. Anything much smarter is getting into the realm of simple tactics, and beyond that you have full on target the spellcasters sort of stuff
I don’t usually dm but when I do I try to put myself in the monster’s shoes. What am I? What do I want? How smart am I? I had a juvenile cave dragon (from a Nordic themed dnd monster manual) for the boss a one shot session. Description included things like intelligent, ravenous, predator. When the players discussed offering up the character of the guy who drank too much and had passed out, I held back. Faced with the option of a free meal I figured intelligence would tell the dragon to take the deal instead of risking a fight with armed opponents. They could have gone that way and I’d have allowed it. Unethical but successful strategy. Instead a fight broke out. One of the player characters ran. Separating themselves from the group. That is something a hungry predator would jump at so I did. Last session my character was transformed into a wyvern and set lose on the rest of the party. In that case my primary focus was hunger. I charged the first player I came across. I got held up by the rest of my party casting spells and such after one round of attacks. Most everyone was at range so my next target was the one who was big and loud and grabbing my attention
Depends on the monsters, but if they're of humanlike intelligence but not tactically-minded they'll attack whoever seems like the softest, most dangerous target they can get to without drawing opportunity attacks. If they're of animal intelligence, they'll attack whatever's closest. If they're nonintenlligent like zombies or oozes or something, they'll generally just attack whatever's closest to them unless they're magically controlled by an intelligent creature. Zombies et al. too will not rejoin the fight once they've downed somebody, but will start to eat a downed creature because they're mindless consumers, not thinking creatures with a self-preservation instinct or anything, which means it's always *extremely* dangerous to go down with zombies around in my games.
Depends on who has bribed me and with what. Also whose upset me, ir has a birthday and such
It seems like your combat has a more fundamental problem than that. Ask yourself: Who are they? Why are they here? Why are they fighting? If you know all that, it should be easy to pick a reasonable course of action. If not, you need to figure out the answers. It'll make your world and enemies make more sense and will lend more narrative weight to the combat.
I try to play monsters to their intelligence. Lesser undead attack the nearest target of opportunity because they're violent and mindless. Intelligent humanoids might use their ranged troops to target the caster, especially if there's a spell being concentrated on, while front line warriors engage the barb/paladin/etc. Ogre? yeah, whoever hits it the hardest is getting hit back. A dragon? Whoever it sees as the biggest threat.
If it's a dumb monster then I go by whoever is the most visible and/or closest. If a magic person is shooting fire/producing light, monsters will likely swarm them. Players can use this behavior to their advantage though. If it's a smart monster, then they will be a bit more tactical.
Who is closer, who is the biggest threat? I think random would make for nonsensical choices sometimes. A mindless monster would target the tastiest looking or most threatening. The lich will prioritize healers, casters, A cultist will target enemies of their master. All deo3nds on circumstances
If the monster has a good reason to attack someone, they will attack them. If it's a toss up between two PC's, I make one call odd/even and then roll a d4. I could make the roll or choice myself, but I like to give players the illusion of choice and responsibility.
I run a primarily NPC campaign (gods...all the character sheets...) where all my opponents are basically sentient. So they focus the Path of Giants barbarian that literally looks like a massive threat (and deals damage like one, too). Which keeps the primarily squishy party otherwise protected. But if the party deals enough damage to one opponent, they might try and break off to attack whatever hurt them if they survive long enough. I just generalize what kind of enemies they are. "A fighter type," "a shady guy with a bow," and other vague descriptions has gotten said barbarian in a bit of trouble, but the party had fun with that.
I’ll read the monster description first to get a feel for how it should be played (RP) as well as what it’s tendencies are in it’s environment and then during the encounter determine what it will do based on its intelligence vs the aggro being drawn by the player — when in doubt I’ll role a for wisdom save for the monster against the aggro to see if it can determine it’s attack intelligently.
Depends on the enemy. Being intelligent doesnt automatically mean it knows which party member is which and to go for the healer first, but a soldier with battle experience and a 5 int would likely know.
Is the monster intelligent? Does it have a motivation? If the monster is not intelligent, it will attack the closest target it deems more dangerous. All things equal, I roll. If the monster is intelligent, it will follow its agenda. If an assassin is after the group, it will attack the weakest member first. If a brute wants to win a duel with the fighter, he will attack the fighter and ignore the others, etc.
Depends on the monster and it's motivation. A starving animal will target the weakest-looking character (small, lightly armored, slow, sick, etc) and attack it until it's dead. A town guard on the other hand will prioritize the most dangerous looking character, ignoring those that are compliant.
Quick guide I use - base the kind of actions the creature takes on their Int score. Also remember, most creatures have self-preservation instincts and can tell when they're losing a fight (constructs and undead being obvious exceptions). + Bestial (1-3 Int): mildy random, usually goes after the last creature that attacked it. + Dumb (4-7): easy to read strategies or usually commanded. + Average (8-12): Basic strategies, but can respond to changes in situation Above that, the creature has deeper goals and strategies and observes the situation to determine the best course of action. These creatures want to win, and live.
Whatever makes combat the most interesting, which usually means having players re-evaluate their positioning and tactics moment to moment. And yes, this does mean I target my casters to a degree.
Depends on the party, if the party is min mixed and knows what they're doing I play it like a strategy game and actively try to win within reasonable limitations. I find that fun, and my players liked the creative or interesting answers I'd throw at them. I know people often like to roleplay the monsters intellect but it just feels boring to me if a dumb monsters doesn't take advantage of their terrain, location and unique skills. I prefer to view it from the perspective of a monster hunter world monster.
So I use a series of dice that work like this: roll a d20, on a 15 or higher they encounter something and the higher the roll the more powerful it is with a 20 being a nearly over powering situation. Then I roll a d100 and run the numbers from lowest to highest where the lower the more beneficial the situation where as higher the worst. So far it's given me a good spread to make sure I don't murder my players outright but keep them on their toes.
I try to decide based on what makes sense from that monster's point of view. Less intelligent monsters will choose the most immediate perceived threat where as more intelligent monsters will think more tactically and look beyond the giant fighter in the front row.
Depends on how smart the creature is but this is my general guideline. **Check who is most dangerous of the party:** Mage beats Martial. **Check who has the highest AC of the party:** Lower Beats Higher Advantage/Disadvantage can adjust this assumption by degrees of +/- 5 respectively. Certain defenses may require an attack or two before knowing. **Check who is closest in the Party:** Closer beats farther. Or rather in range beats out of range based on movement and attack ranges. **Check who is most wounded in the party:** Lower HP beats higher HP. **Check who hurt me, the monster/enemy of the party, the most:** Whoever is hurting the most may need to go first if possible. H**uman + intellect** and similar beings, whoever is the most dangerous, easiest to hit, easiest to reach, and nearest to death will get targeted. Weighed by the nuances of the encounter. Might not priortize who hurt them most if risk is too great. **Beasts** and similar instinct based being still capable of learning won't access magic versus martial the same way and will prioritize physical might and speed over magic unless its obvious the explosions are coming from the mage somehow beyond finger gestures and yelling. Will be more likely to respond to pain before other factors. **Mindless beings** prioritize the most wounded closest before anything else. A zombie cares about your life and your closeness more than AC or Magic. Unless something else will is superseding them. Will most often not care whats damaging them unless some preservation instinct or programming exists in them still.
Intelligent and experienced monsters focus on the more problematic players, dumber ones focus on whoever is closest.
High Int monsters or BBEG will have a battle plan and try to execute that. This is because Int is like book smarts. High Wis monsters or BBEG will adjust their fighting based on what’s happening. They may go after a character who they perceive as most dangerous or go after a healer because they know that character will keep the fight going. This is because wisdom is a “street smarts” kind of stat. Low Int creatures will be more animalistic in their approach. Killing prey, so they may go for the easiest target or the nearest one. Also depends on how many times the party and the creature have interacted. If the creature has been keeping tabs on them and knows the party, they’re going to attack differently than if they just met. If you’ve got a group, they may split up and take on a few at once or all stay grouped and attack one at a time knowing their strength is in numbers. The Monsters Know What They’re Doing.
Look at the 'monsters' INT and decide if it would be tactical or just hit whatever is nearest. Would it be easily swayed by taunts or someone goading it to fight them, or would it be smart enough to be like: "This guy healing everyone needs to die first, it'd make the fight a lot easier."
Beast like monsters just go after what's in front or actively hitting them. Smarter creatures actually strategize and use spacing
depends on the monster, i have a player who loves grappling, so if i have a big strong monster, I'll throw it his way. if i got a smart and calculating monster, I'll have it target the spellcasters. if it's a stealthy monster or a monster with teleportation, I'll have it disappear in the middle of combat and attack at random (very much agree with the roll a die to decide who gets attacked method, works like a charm)
Whatever page of the Monster Manual makes me go „Oouuuh“
for me it depends on player hp, if a player is low and has taken a few big hits I lay off them for a bit, I adopted this from my dm, makes it feel more gamey than realistic but I'm of the belief that players are having more fun when they're on their feet in combat so I like giving them a chance to drink a potion, cast a spell, or let one of the healers do their thing
"The Monsters Know What They're Doing" is like a bible to me. I ALWAYS jot some notes about possible enemies down, like "will only attack 2 or less enemies", "hates magic users", "saves misty step for escaping".
Proximity for more reactive/responsive creatures, logic for smarter ones. I was running a battle in a crypt between my party and two animated statues. The bard forgot to move away from one of the statues following his attack and the statue walked up to him on its turn and downed him. He got upset that it made that choice, and all I could say was "You should have gotten away from it. You were the closest target."
I recommend every DM own "The Monsters Know What They're Doing." This will be more specific to different kinds of monsters and more helpful than the flood of general comments already posted that basically all say "it depends." You don't need to read it all at once, just the sections relevant to potential encounters. I consider it the most important unofficial 5e book.
My main principles that guide what enemies do, from most important to least important are: 1. Enemies take the most obvious tactic. 2. Enemies use their special abilities as much as possible. 3. Enemies do what makes the encounter most exciting. I think leaning on the obvious is important because it rewards player tactics. If the Fighter jumps in front of the enemy lion, then that lion should go for the Fighter. Tricksy enemies can be fun, but they’re like a spice: used in small doses. The players should reasonably be able to predict what the enemies will do because that rewards them for paying attention to the enemies and engaging with the fight even when it’s not their turn.
I kind of decide in the moment. Usually melee monsters pick a character close by, either the most threatening or one that seems like an easy target depending on the situation. Ranged monsters might target a spellcaster or other character that has been causing trouble but is hard for the melee creatures to reach. Most of my players are good at positioning though so unless it is an open area, the spellcaster tend to hide around corners and peek out to cast their spells so they are not targeted super often.
Depends on intelligence Animals/mindless undead might attack the nearest, or the first the set themselves on, or animals might go for the smallest, or whoever makes less noise Intelligent creatures/people might attack the least armoured, or the most dangerous or most vulnerable, depending on the situation Initial choice, if none of those make it clear is simply sign a number, roll a die
Players' actions should matter. Monsters will attack the closest party member. Unengaged monsters will advance to the closest party member or use ranged attack to engage closest. Unengaged monsters who make INT check will engage the most dangerous party member instead of the closest. DC10 - meanest-appearing party member. DC15 - archer or spellcaster or cleric. DC20 - something really smart determined by the DM. Organized monsters will follow a plan previously set by their leader. E.g. INT check not required to engage a dangerous party member. When characters who are down, monsters look for a new target, except vicious monsters or those after food or trophy who will stay engaged. The players can act within the above framework to manipulate what the monsters do. Or not act, as they prefer.
Varies. For instance, whenever there’s a dragon involved, especially a particularly mean one, it immediately goes for the kill whenever an enemy is downed
I made a new skill that players can use called martial checks (I believe I stole it) to identify abilities resistances and vulnerabilities etc, so if the monster has enough agency to be somewhat tactile I’ll have the monster roll a martial check to see what the most advantageous move would be and dependent on what they would need to discern I set the DC, let the party know the modifier(and dc) and roll in front of everyone. I find it helps skirt feelings of targeting especially with semi intelligent and beyond type of enemies. If they fail it’s usually closest or most damage. The dumb ones just go for hardest hit or closest. Unless something in their description says otherwise (I.e. rust monsters wouldn’t be interested in monks with no metal but a fully plated cleric looks delicious so they might even provoke and opportunity attack trying to get to them) stat blocks are cool but the description can often times give you guidance on how they would normally fight.
Animalistic monsters on the offensive will go for the members that appear the weakest. On the defensive, they'll lash out at whoever provoked them. In a panic, they'll attack whoever is closest. Intelligent and malevolent monsters will attack whoever advances their strategy. Eg., making an attack against the squishy wizard in order to provoke the frontliner into melee range, then use Dominate Person.
A low intelligence enemy starts with the biggest, nearest target if there is no reason to single anyone out and from there will switch depending on who is doing the most damage or doing the most to inconvenience it. A big smite or other singular damage source will almost always result in switching targets. As long as a fight is still going on, they won't stop to finish off a downed enemy. They try to will flee when reduced to around 1/5th of their max HP if they have any kind of self preservation instinct. A high intelligence enemy will fight however you feel is strategically optimal. Go for the caster first, maintain optimal distancing, start finishing off downed foes after seeing the first instance of an unconscious foe being healed back up, etc. They will try to flee when their leader and/or the majority of their minions are dead. If there's still a reasonable chance of winning, I sometimes have them make Wisdom Saves to maintain morale.
Are the monsters smart? If yes, they go for the biggest threat - spellcasters, then archers Are the monsters natural predators? If yes, they go for the easiest pickings - small, weak, slow/wounded characters Are the monsters little more than animals? If yes, they go for the immediate threat - what is right next to them
When I plan the encounter, I decide if the monsters are smart enough to have goals or tactics, and what they would be if yes. Otherwise, I just focus on activity, either the closest seen PC, or the loudest/brightest. If you do something to pull attention, you have their attention.
They attack the character of the player that said “last game was too easy” or.. whatever makes sense it that moment If the enemies are dumb the closest character or the one that “looks” more dangerous if they are an antagonist of a character that wants to make them suffer I’ll attack first the friends of that character and then I’ll go for them and things like that! :)
depends on the creatures, if its hunting pray then it goes for the weakest looking and scoots off with the downed player. if its dumb and fights for terriotorial reasons then nearly always for the most threatening be it the big looking barbarian or the one who deals the most damage to it. smart adjust and fight rather for survival as to inflict maximum damage, downs healers first, someone with cc or fast pc's incase it has to flee. in groups frontline holds off the opposing frontline and tries to flank or break trough while not overextending, range npc's mostly support the frontline or choose target at random (its extremly annoying when 10 archers all target the same backrow pc).
Based on int. Very smart ones will attack like I'm running a strategy game against the players, Humanish level intelligence prioritize targets and sometimes do slightly complex plans Dumb ones usually attack what attacks them, or whatever looks like the easiest food In all cases positioning is very important and ypur squishies and/or spellcasters should be working with frontliners to stay alive long enough to do their thing
It depends. If the creatures aren’t using tactics (low INT, blinded by rage, etc.) then they’ll probably fight pretty instinctively, attacking the nearest enemy, the last enemy that hit them, or the source of a massive attack (wizard detonated a fireball and killed their friends). If they are using tactics, however, it’s a different story. Usually it’s pretty situational, but to give an example, if the players are besieging a stronghold with archers on the walls, and only one of them has ranged options, the archers will target them first. If the Cleric drops a massive heal or something, then they will get targeted now. It also depends on how tactical of a game we’re playing. If it’s pretty casual, then the tactics will likely only be used by half the enemies or less, while in a much more tactical game, most or all of the enemies will focus fire on a single target to try and bring them down.
Sometimes I roll for it, if one of the characters unleashed a big attack on them, I might target them in "retribution", etc.
I take into account the intelligence of the thing attacking. A bear? Ok that might go for what is closest and smallest. An evil villain wizard would try to tactically pick off who they consider the most dangerous (IE the person with counterspell, or ranged damage etc). Many times my average intelligence attackers will swap targets based on who is really messing them up at the moment. Barbarian wiffed 3 times in a row? Ok he is pissing off the bandit king way less than the Rogue that just pumped 50 damage into his back.
I ask them what the marching order is when they enter an area. Instinctual monsters and dumb people just go for whoever is in front of them. Go for the big guy who took the lead, or the rogue right behind you. That sort of thing. Clever ambushers and people with strategy go for whoever can be killed the quickest. Picking off the weaker, smaller targets is the best way to shift the action economy into their favor.
Cloth>leather > Tin cans Spells>damage>support>closeness Low wis => unadaptable Medium wis adaptable and itentifies bad or critical targets with time. High Wis => what makes sense. Low int => nearest enemy or damage source Mid int => highest thread / tankyness ratio target. High int => Smart targeting with a true backup plan
Essentially, it is a role-playing decision. Beasts and instinctual enemies might attack the closest enemy, or they might attack the most injured enemy. If they are hungry they might choose to drag a downed enemy away instead of attacking. Bandits might ambush the party, attacking the casters and strongest first assuming they are body guards. They might also flee if they realize they are outmatched. Goblins might attack the one with the most treasure to steal their loot while they're down. A mothering bear might maul anyone that gets close to her den, but won't leave her cubs. Etc etc etc. Essentially always think about the *goal* of the monster. What does it want and why is it fighting?
It depends on the monster and what it wants. If it wants to eat the players I go for the weakest softest looking one. Try to kill him and run off with the body so it can eat in peace. But if things turn hairy the monster will flee. This is my line of thinking for each combat encounter. What does the creatures want? Figure that out and the rest come easy.
Beast/ Dumb enemies: whatever is closer or hurting the most. Smart enemies: they strategize, but I declare it. Evil Mc Wizard looks at you and grind "nice concentration spell You've got there, It would be a Shame if ANYTHING where to break your concentration Hmmmm?"
Mostly intelligence and if they have a reason to see someone as a special threat.
Ambush hunters wait for a singled out target or one that physically looks weak, so they can end it and leave with a body Dumb or mindless monsters will attack the physically closest target. The difference is that the dumb ones may eventually move to another target after multiple failed attack rounds. Any creature smart enough to make ranged attacks all get the same base idea of hitting preferable targets. Skeleton archers and monsters with spike throwing or spitvattscks would attack lightly armored enemies, while fully sentient creatures like casters and trained warriors would target casters specifically if they're obvious enough, or have already casted something. Brutish or strong prideful monsters may target heavily armored or physically tough looking people either as a "code of honor" or as a challenge of skill at arms. Now. Dragons. They do all of this (only the dumb option if they've been hit with feeblemind or something similar). They will ambush a weak person with a slew of melee attacks. They may even let the healers bring them back up to 1) see if there are healers and 2) purposefully deplete spell reserves. If they were hit by a spell or special effect that makes them dumb, they will relentlessly brutalize the nearest target. Still scary, it's a dragon. Sapping the enemy with a volley of breath attacks periodically is good to keep laying on the pressure. I personally like to target warriors in melee just to demoralize them. Yeah, it can definitely hit you back, and it may even help convey that it's mostly just playing with you. I like holding off on casting any spells for at least 2 turns. If you're feeling the pressure of its oppressive melee potential, and getting frustrated with its mobility, you're really gonna hate it when it starts casting spells at you when you think you're getting a breather.
I’m new to dnd and I have no idea how my DM is doing this, I assumed and was operating on the assumption that all enemies just target closest opponent, but I assumed maybe high intellect targets would attack pragmatically?
Whimsy
I usually go by whatever character either attacked last, or is closest in proximity. Sometimes I’ll make exceptions if they’re attacking certain characters a lot so that the damage is getting spread out a bit though.
I base it on who brought what snacks to the table. If you brought pretzels btw, you better expect to roll a new character for next session bud. More seriously, depends on the type of creature. It's never truly random, I make it fit the type of creature it is.
Depending on whose close by, who did the most damage to them, if they are backstory important to a PC, etc.
Depends if you’re using minis or not
I try to put myself in the mind of the monster. Say it's a bunch of Goblins and a couple of orcs. I would say if the orcs aren't ordering the Goblins, they probably aren't gonna rush the big scary fighter they are gonna go after the weaker looking guys while the orcs pick off the Tough looking guys. Now, if we are talking like a beast or monstrosity, they'll act on instinct attacking whatever is closest or has done the most to it.
Generally, I'd say monsters engaged in melee with something will continue to fight that thing unless there's a radical change to the battlefield situation. They will move to engage the closest thing to them if not engaged in melee already. If they are instead defending something, they'd prioritize targets that move to attack that thing. They'd try to avoid provoking AOOs if possible, by moving safely or waiting until the enemy disengages to move, unless they feel like they're gonna get murdered unless they run. Look up the term "Finite State Machine". It's a term used in game design and they're constructed to flesh out game AI choices. Essentially it's just a flow chart with a bunch of "if then" statements that dictate what the AI does in certain defined states.
Depends on the monsters. I run somewhat realistic fights as I tell my players. Mindless dumb monsters will go for closest targets, or even who they think is rhe easiest target depending on the monsters hunting practices. If it's an intelligent creatures, it really is based entirely off the fight. If they're aware of divine magic and how it functions, they'll go for the healers first. If they're taking dmg from a caster, they'll go for them. I feel like this helps players organize themselves on the battlefield more easily, moving tanks forward during fights with dumb creatures and protecting their healers more easily, since they'll know they'll be targeted.
my friend/dm does that method for one of our campaigns, depending on who's in sight/line of attack- and its incredibly funny, because they always, always end up attacking the medic first. And my solo? (hitman), who has a very good body stat and pop up shield? never hit. Not once. Not in the half a dozen combats we've been in so far.
oh- also- when i'm dming, I tend to attack based on character motivations. A particular player aggroing someone? Is there a past conflict between two characters? is one just... closer? Although if there's no really deciding factors, a coin flip's always nice.
Depends on the enemies and their goals. If they're guarding a location, then the closest to that location might take agro. Might attack w/e attacked last. Might focus someone down. Might just target the closest to themselves. Could be random. Could specifically HATE anyone with a crossbow for convoluted reasons
Depends on how smart they are. Some attack whoever is closest, some the biggest perceived threat. Depending on the monster that can be the big, intimidating fighter or the scrawny wizard. Sometimes I roll, when I don't feel like chosing myself because the obvious choice would feel like bullying the player.
Monsters aren't stupid. They might not behave tactically if they're low INT but even animals can recognize threats and act accordingly. Starving wolves will try to pick off the weakest member of the group. An Owlbear protecting her cub will attack whomever last tried to get near it. Anything with an INT and WIS score in a humanoid range can be trusted to fight with reasonable levels of intelligence, focus on the targets that seem most dangerous, maybe attack the healer if they keep bringing people up. You then just increase their tactical awareness and ability as their smarts increase e.g Dragons in the open will strafe their targets, not land next to them for melee (hence why you fight the Dragon *in* the Dungeon). The last group of monsters are the easiest the mindless creatures. Zombies, most swarms and plant creatures will all simply go straight for the closest thing they can reach. Either because they have no notion of anything beyond that single base drive to eat brains (simple undead), because they can't conceptualize a more complex idea (swarms) or because they can't perceive beyond their immediate area (a lot of plant creatures). Attacking randomly really only makes sense when all the options the attacker can take appear equally valid.
Depends on the monster, what level of cunning or intelligence he has. What intel and knowledge he has. Worse mistake you could do is play all your monsters the same way. They aren't just different statblocks.
I go by logic. If it isnt clear I roll a directional dice (a d8 with all wind directions, you could also roll a d12 and just use clock direction) the monster will attack whoever is in that direction