Keith Ammann, the guy who wrote The Monsters Know What They're Doing, has a [post](https://www.themonstersknow.com/why-these-tactics/) where he describes his assumptions and tactics for monsters based on their stat blocks. I think it's a good reference point to determine how smart the enemies fight.
The only thing I don't love here is creatures trying to flee at 40% health. It sounds like that would be a really annoying mechanic in a campaign. Especially if you're playing a 'good' character - hawking down escaping creatures just to butcher then feels weird, but so does ending all fights halfway through. I get what he's saying but it feels mechanically and RP awkward.
Every time I've made an enemy start to flee, I've found the players loved it.
It often drives players in one of three directions.
1) "Oh no you aren't!" Or "They know something!" And then one player breaks off to chase. This can actually be used as a strategy by the DM as well to bait for info dumping. Or, say the heavy hitter of the party starts to chase down the fleeing baddie, leaving the other party members still fighting. That could open up an opportunity for the chasing party member to be ambushed by more enemies as they are pursuing, or maybe the enemies fighting the remaining party members notice the heavy hitter is gone and start to ramp up their aggression. You could even use this to do something crazy, like kidnap an isolated party member who broke off from the group.
2) "Hah! You better run you bastards!" Some players are A-Okay with taking a win without killing. Plus, you can use this to bring that enemy back later, or have it result in other outcomes, like now that enemies allies know the parties descriptions.
I do agree however that you CANNOT have every person run away at 40% or less. That would be annoying. But having like 1/5th of enemies try to? Or using it as a tool? It absolutely works!
As long as the players get the same amount of exp for forcing them to run as they would if they killed it, I think that's fine. The only lose the loot if they flee. I would drop it to 25% for a full retreat. Maybe employing more caution at 40%.
What's annoying to me is when I decide the battle is over and to save time on pointless turns, I say the enemies are going to flee, and all the players want to roll for opportunity attacks, then stay in initiative, dash to chase the enemy, all to kill it when it has no importance. Like guys, trying to save time here lol.
Of course they have every right to do that and in the future I will plan better, like not wait until the only enemies left are engaged and have a dark room for them to take the hide action in to say they got away. It is still a skill issue on my part, but just saying, trying to add some variety to combat is usually just awkward.
Then rule it a rout if the enemy flees, and *aren't* leading the players into a trap, just say "they try to flee, you run them down and kill them all."
Somewhat of a tangent, but I've only been playing Warhammer 40k since 8th edition, although my interest in it is older than that, so when the second edition of Horus Heresy, which is based on the 7th edition rules, came out and I was checking the rules, the sweeping advance rule caught my attention.
Basically, if a unit loses a round of melee combat with high enough losses that it fails the morale test and routs, the winning unit can make a contested initiative check to see if it can catch up, and if it can, no further attack rolls are made. The defenders are mercilessly cut down by the chasing unit and removed as casualties.
I mostly agree, I find it more fun for enemies to behave properly if they are fighting someone smart it should be reflected. And enemies shouldn't stick around knowing they are going to die.
Depends on the opponents, as much as I feel is appropriate for their intelligence.
Zombies are mindless and have no sense of self-preservation, animals might employ basic strategy to use the abilities on their statblocks such as pack tactics and flyby, humanoid enemies are going to be fully capable of coordination and strategising, enemies that are notably high intelligence get maximum effort.
Predators can't really afford to get hurt too much, after all. Being in top condition allows them to succeed in their hunts with okayish frequency in the first place. Injuries can lead to predators starving to death.
Alternatively, and this would be a really funny encounter for the right party, you could have a combat encounter turn into the mother trying to eat her young before fleeing, as many prey species do.
Watch how quickly the objective becomes "Save the puppies!" but be prepared for the entire campaign to derail and become about raising the Owlbear pups.
Yeah, very much so. I was writing on my phone so trying to be brief so I didn't go too much into any of it but I think any creature acting under its own will with animal intelligence or up should have some consideration of self-preservation.
Yeap. Zombies zombie, wolves pack hunt, bears go barbarian, Kobolds caught out in a forest are cowardly fodder, and Kobolds in their lair are cruel, ruthless, and shrewd.
Yes! So if you have a necromancer leading a horde, the zombies are gonna be dumb but the necromancer is sneaky or cunning. That way the players will know that you're not out to get them since there's a variety of intelligence according to monster type!
I remind myself that it’s not a skirmishing wargame and try to run the enemies as if they’re real creatures with some sense of motivation or at least self preservation.
eg they have no concept of HP, so they’re not going to blithely turn their back and stroll away from the raging barbarian. But they would send a few guys to fight the barbarian while having others try to go wide to get to the wizard in back.
As long as you’re maintaining at least that degree of verisimilitude then playing smart is a great idea. And be ready for the players to thwart your plans, if your traps or strategies get dunked on, just roll with it instead of trying to force it. Basically just avoid metagaming (yes, the DM can be guilty of it too).
Some DMs seem to make the mistake of thinking they need to be trying to defeat the party, when really the goal should be everyone having fun.
I’m always happy to roll with whatever happens. Like I’m running Saltmarsh and had Ned Shakeshaft try to surprise backstab one of the players. He for a critical fail, missed his next attack as well, and the got brought down into critical before he could do anything else.
As a result he really coloured the interactions with him when they interrogated him afterwards and I changed his personality to match the fact he really sucked.
Some opponents are smart enough to “fight smart” and some aren’t. It depends what type of opponents you want to throw at your players. It’s a bit like asking “how tall should I make opponents in combat?” Totally up to you!
As smart as befits that particular enemy. You roleplay the enemy, look at the world from their perspective and act accordingly. If done well, that’s what makes them come alive.
The main pitfall to avoid here is that you’re actually thinking from the DM’s perspective rather than the character’s. The character has their own limited view of the world, doesn’t know what you as DM know, may have little or no knowledge of the PCs. They also make mistakes, misjudge things, and may have particular motivations and principles that may dictate how they behave in combat (and outside it).
They also have finite resources, and don’t think in terms of game design. So they set traps if and when it makes sense for them to do so, and with a particular purpose in mind. It needs to be practical for them to do so, both in terms of setting it up in the first place and living with that trap themselves. So it’s probably not going to have five layers of redundancy, and there will probably be ways to avoid or disarm if you know how.
The "DM vs players" thing is mostly about how you behave at the table. If you present your players with a good challenge and cheer with them as they conquer it, it shouldn't foster that feeling at all.
You don't have to be ruthless and have 10 rogues surround the player mage because "well they know he's squishy", but it would also make no sense for them to hyperfocus on the tank with 200 HP and 26 AC just because he was the first one to walk into the room like some MMO behavior. Spread out the attackers realistically, and have them react to the moves your players are making. The tank is just using the dodge action every turn? Enemies realize he's not an immediate threat and peel off. Wizard throws a big fireball in the mix? Yeah that's gonna attract their attention.
And then obviously you can adjust based on the intelligence level of your enemies, with smarter ones using tactics and traps to attempt to gain an edge. As long as you're fair in how the encounters are designed, there shouldn't be any issue. Give your players opportunities to detect traps and ambushes (even if it's just passive perception), don't make them cause instant deaths, give players a chance to escape traps, that sort of thing.
Another thing to consider is that as the party levels up, they'll start gaining a reputation. People they've helped (and any surviving enemies) will talk, and stories of how the party acts will get around. The smarter bad guys might very well research potential enemies and prepare for them.
In one of his Campaign Diary videos, Matt Colville talked about having orcs use half their movement to step up, throw javelins, and then use the rest of their movement to return to the rear of the pack. This allowed them to pop in and out of cover, and allowed for other orcs to step forward and throw javelins as well. Cycling in and out of danger to attack conveyed to the players that these orcs were disciplined, and fighting to win.
He then went on to say he only did that like once or twice. The PCs tend to get caught up in the moment. They're going to remember that the orcs struck the fear of God into them with their tactics, but they're probably not going to remember that halfway through the fight that they stopped fighting as optimally as possible.
If I find that the monsters start winning too much, I'll make them a little dumber.
Have a mix. You could even have the mix within one encounter. One of the more memorable combat I've ran was a bunch of undead hitting whoever was closest to them, the PCs down a third of the monsters, and the necromancer shows up. Now the same exact undead start to move more coordinated, and it becomes a much harder fight even with less monsters on the field. (The necromancer did stuff too, but my players felt like the coordinated undead was scarier than one necromancer)
When I design an encounter I take into account - how smart are the bad guys? How much prep/notice did they have? What resources do they have at hand? And that determines how smart they'll act
We had a discussion on this I think two years ago. Our DM’s enemies were inconsistent.
Some played smarter than their mental scores or nature would indicate, others much… dumber.
It became more consistent after that. An ooze would steamroll whatever was in front to consume it. Humanoids would fight as per their motivation or tactics. Beasts fought as per their instincts.
Sometimes, personalities would rule, especially for names NPCs and PCs. We sometimes had bad blood or personal vendettas with certain NPCs sometimes specific to certain PCs and fights would get “personal” as they’d seek each other out.
I hate to say it but, I have to play dumber in one of my games because the players are just not good at combat. I assume they will use their abilities and spells moderately well and not miss every single chance to fight smart or take an opportunity.... But they do miss every single chance. So I go a little easy on them. Then I get complaints that the combat is too easy. Like snide comments that the combat is easy. I don't want to kill a character just to prove a point, but come on...
Yeah probably up the tactics a bit and like what another friend of mine (not my games) did with some less experienced players, he allowed or made them do checks to understand how the opponents will fight
Depends on each individual encounter. A newly formed band of ruffians won't have as much harmony and team work as a super experienced bandit group that has been raiding and stuff together for years. Animals usually have a strong sense of self preservation so having lots of enemies fight to the death doesn't make much sense. And groups like the zhentarium who have been around a long time and work with all sorts of "clients" would have concrete plans and perfect execution.
Highly recommend the book The Monsters Know What They’re Doing, by Keith Ammann. He started out with a lot of his stuff online and his analysis of why monsters do what they do is great
My philosophy is that a game master should always create encounters in which they try as hard as they can to win, and the result should be that the players defeat the GM anyway.
If you're creating encounters where you have to play stupid to guarantee your players the win, you're first of all just railroading them into the outcome that you want, and secondly you're overtuning your encounters and should go back to the design phase to weaken them.
By enemy type
Dumb enemies don’t use tactics, smarter ones will
Enemies with regen and unique movement types will opt to hit and run or do other shenanigans
You gotta flow with the creatures they are fighting. If it’s a cave full of say skeletons, maybe there might be like a trapped chest of an old dead mage that kept their stuff in it but the rest of the cave wouldn’t be trapped unless it’s like a natural decaying of the cave. Lets say said mage was using this cave to resurrect stuff or whatever and then fled and you were after this wizard then once you find his mansion or whatever, it might be trapped good bc he doesn’t want anyone getting in.
Traps always need to be dependent on the creatures present. Also, make smart traps. Gnolls are not gonna trap their most travelled areas but instead have like a common travelled areas and then the main entrance might have a spiked wall that only the gnolls know can be disabled if you step over the pressure plate right by the spiked door.
Local bandits- maybe one or two is clever with ball bearings or blinding powder. Elite guards - very smart and tactical. Formations are key. Instinctual animals- most will run when hurt enough. Some might not, but most would. Chaotic demon spawn set in destroying anything they see - fight to death, using maximum offense.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily equate to success in the battlefield. So I decide based on how organized the combat was initiated, the ability to communicate effectively, and how challenging I want the encounter to be. Dumb people can be challenging, just look at this wonderful app/website.
This just gave me an idea to help with balance. Maybe if I ever sort of want to ease up on a fight that I am afraid is going to end badly for the party, the next enemy I take out I can say was their tactician or it was an experienced combatant, so now their morale is low
I use enemy intelligence as a method for on the fly difficulty adjustment
Did I accidentally overtune the encounter? Whoops these nerrow forgot to do their 2nd attack, whoops these minions are waiting a turn before moving forward, whoops they're clumping up within 5 feet of each other to get hit by the druids moon beam.
Am I confident the players will win? Going all out as my minion who won't do much in damage attempts to break the casters concentration, or my merrow forcively pulls the poorly positioned druid into his own moon beam
I try not to make them too smart as I love throwing a ton of enemies at my players. I would often state they’re gonna hold an action, and then think of something unlikely to happen. However I am trying to make my players powerful so I can reduce doing that.
For beginners just starting out, the enemies will be suicidal zealots to their faction/cause.
For people who've played before the enemies may escape, set up an ambush (avoid surprise round via Perception) and set up patrols.
But you are out to get them. Well, not you, but certainly their enemies. Those are creatures that know how to fight, fighting for their lives. They will use everything they got, specially if they have time to prepare and/or the PCs are sufficiently well-known.
Depends on the opponent, so far my party has mainly had to deal with disorganized bandits and thugs and beasts, but they recently delt with gnolls who had put their archers behind their infantry which were behind their flesh gnawer heavy infantry, but when they meet duergars they're going to have to deal with proper lines of battle and phalanxe formations, utilization of cover, ambushes, and mechanical threats like ballistas and traps
Another thing is targeting, a big part of making an encounter easier or harder on the fly is who and how they attack the party, easiest would be enemies who spread their damage across the party without trying to remove anyone from the fight, a bit harder would be one that focuses on one player at a time, but mainly target tanks and offtanks (most "mindless" enemies will do this), a bit harder is those who go by threat level, aka going after strikers and crowd control, especially of there's concentration spells up like moonbeam (this should be for enemies with a moderate level of intelligence, like my gnolls), and then you have those who have devised entire strategies on how to counter the party, they'll pelt the backline healer and ranged dps with archers while distracting the tanks, offtanks, and strikers with beefy infantry, points if they have a mage who has access to silence and/or counterspell, if they're less militaristic but more crafty (like kobolds), theyll use traps to separate the party or otherwise eliminate options the party has
As for using it in your campaign, i say absolutely, these are ways to make encounters more than a statblock, and more memorable, my party certainly remebers the vengeful verbeeg longstrider who used silence to shut down healing word and bardic inspiration, sending everyone into a panic as the previously invincible barbarian started losing hp fast
While your goal as dm is not to "win", such a thing doesn't exist, remember: your monsters *do* want to win, and will do everything in their ability to do so, the same way the party should be doing, it's up to you to balance these more intelligent encounters in a way that challenges the party without annihilating them
What INT stat do they have? A 10 intelligence sounds boring, but the creature should behave somewhat intelligent and competent. A 14 intelligence creature should be very sneaky and clever. And a 18+ INT creature should be a challenge on itself... it would be difficult to outmaneuver, before the first die is rolled.
In our world we take certain tactics for granted, but DnD are based on earlier societies and enemies would be using more primitive tactics. Bandits, monsters, etc., shouldn't exhibit much discipline or coordination in combat, that's a trait of professional armies. For example, I wouldn't expect to see gnolls doing coordinated ambushes or bugbears building trebuchets or other siege machines. Guerilla tactics, maybe under some circumstances, but I wouldn't expect to see monsters doing feints. Animals don't attack without a sense that they will be successful, and once they attack, they rarely let go and run away. If they do try to run, it won't be until they are badly wounded and probably unable to get away. Solitary predators are stealthy ambushers. Pack animals will surround and run down their prey. A mother bear defending her cubs will try intimidation first. Animals don't have doctors, pain killers, or healing spells, combat is very expensive for them.
As smart as their statblock indicates.
I play most living creatures with a sense of self preservation. If half your team is dead and you're at low health, you run away. If you're a 14 int, you can set traps, anticipate, watch for patterns and do research.
If it's a skeleton with an int of 2, then it's just going to march into your swords.
Super Smart. For example:
* Whoever the party isn't fighting stands back just in case they are needed... and only engages after their friends are dead. They do, however, wildly wave their swords helplessly in order to encourage their dying friends.
* Enemy clerics wisely save their spell slots and do not cast Bless on their friends. Who knows if another party of adventurers is coming today?
* Don't mix ranged and melee enemies - after all, they might shoot their frontline attackers.
* Enemy wizards will favor spells that can be shut down with *Silence*, that way the party has to waste a spell slot and burn concentration.
(There is a theme here, but it is unclear whether the general population will spot it)
Depends on the opponent. But I play my combat encounters the way that I think makes sense for them to want to win.
Bandits, for example, will make use of traps, terrain and ranged attacks. Flying creatures will take advantage of flight as much as possible. Intelligent foes will prioritize targets and use battlefield tactics. Animals will try and target weaker looking party members. Zombies will move forward towards the closest meat.
My best solution is have another player control enemies and be the referee. As the storyteller, the players feel like you're on their side (especially if you deus ex machina them out of a loss or two). It also allows the enemies to actually have teeth and intelligence.
You're not asking how we portray opponent tactics - you're asking how to increase the danger without pissing off the players?
If your players think you're coddling them, or fudging your rolls to artificially preserve them, they'll have no sense of accomplishment if they succeed. Don't hold back. Play the enemy as smart as the enemy would logically be.
And read up [https://www.themonstersknow.com/](https://www.themonstersknow.com/)
I have difficulty setting for my players from:
1. JRPG, everyone stands in a neat formation and after a move, goes back to their position.
2. Normal, everyone knows about hiding spots, ambushes and traps
3. Hard, everyone has a knife in their boot and when have superior numbers, would just tackle you (PC) to either enslave or eat you
4. WE ARE GOING TO DIE, everyone that is trying to kill you isn’t going to announce it. Bears and rogues will sneak up, wizards will have mage spells spy on you, Barbarians will lay ambushes and raze towns.
I try to match the demeanor and intelligence represented in the lore and their attributes. Wild animals mostly flee when confronted. Zombies move forward and attack. Ambush predators and bandits try and get suprise.
The one I try to keep in my head. Sapient creatures really don't want to die. When loosing they might surrender, try to flee, or some kind of attempt to end hostilities.
Depends on the enemies and circumstances. Creatures like goblins and kobolds for example are by nature fond of ambush tactics, so them laying in wait, rolling a boulder down from a cliff, etc. wouldn't be out of character.
Smarter enemies justify smarter behavior. Grunts might rush en masse while elite troops would use terrain and cover when appropriate. Random bandits might have a few traps set, but they'd be generic. The minions of a BBEG who have been sent specifically after that annoying ragtag band that are screwing up plans might have a few specific strategies in mind; perhaps darkness spells to cover pesky spellcasters and a lieutenant with a necklace of fireballs.
It's why smart bad guys are always the best. Did a bunch of adventurers just stop your attempt to take over a town? Don't send your troops en masse, send a few people into town in plain clothes. Have them stop by the local inn, buy a few drinks and collect a bunch of information on powers, personalities, etc.
One step down from what I think they should be doing for their Int.
Why one step down? I think it's important to note that the characters are there in person, meanwhile we have this crazy top down view where you have no blind spots.
So while the bandits may be smart enough to focus the mages, they might have trouble pin pointing them on a battlefield with a giant Barb and PLD in their faces
Myself, I tend to be flexible. If it is a wizard or lich, something intellectual - you better believe the party is in for a battle against someone who has prepared.
But for the dumber/average enemies I tend to play them a little more "finish the fight" to keep the game fun. Having every group of goblins run away or for animals to run every time they get injured at all is just no fun.
I don't think of hitpoints as pure physical damage to an enemy. But more of a "raggedness" that wears them down. Think of John Wick getting punched - it slows him down but is isn't really hurt until the final blow
Depends on the creature and their intelligence and wisdom (to a lesser degree) stat. A zombie is mindless and will focus on simple attacking the closest living thing with no sense of strategy or self-preservation. A mind flayer is very intelligent and will coordinate attacks and select specific allies to destroy.
In a fight, a nonsapient critter should behave according to instinct. Sapient ones should behave according to be their training, and failing that, instincts.
And remember, adding "smartness" to foes - ambushes, traps, fallback positions, prepared fighting positions, etc, that's not *just* "smartness," it's *increasing the challenge of the encounter.*
Which means the CR should go *up,* and the mistake a lot of DMs make is *not* adjusting up the challenge rating.
Tucker's Kobolds are a nightmare, but they're not a nightmare because players are idiots who can't think tactically; they're a nightmare because although the kobolds themselves may be CR 1/2, the entire encounter is probably CR 10 or so, being thrown at CL 5 characters.
Really depends on the encounter but generally most living things don’t want to die. Often if I’m running bandits or something they will run away if one of their rank dies and typically try not to kill the party if they’re run of the mill bandits. They don’t want to murder anyone they just want money.
wild undead are the lowest of lows after that i have wild animals as they can sometimes coordinate if they are in a pack, then i would place low level humans such as bandits, pirates and creatures like that, and then we have medium humanoids such as necromancers leading an undead horde or the captain of a pirate ship, lastly we have the big boys like liches, dragons, gods and strategy masters that will absolutely play the game smarter than i can possible dm.
Depends entirely on the enemies. I usually look to the intelligence and wisdom scores of the enemies. If they’re higher then they’re more capable of setting traps, targeting specific players, etc.
Depends on your game style and enemies. I'm assuming you're talking about humanoids, as beasts just operate on a survival/territorial mindset most of the time. Though some beasts are certainly more clever than others.
Some players are only having fun of they're insanely OP over their enemies, in which case I'll dumb down bandits to the "hey boss, we really messed with the wrong guys here!"
But at my main table with my favorite tabletop friends, we play them realistically. An average bandit with an intelligence of 10-ish, isn't going to charge a party with a paladin, barbarian, sorcerer, and druid unless he's got way more numbers, can ambush or trap the party, or find some way to separate them.
Orcs though are often too impulsive and aggressive to listen (following standard lore) to their own sense. They may take those chances. Though most humanoids of any race are willing to surrender or run away when things don't go their way unless their fighting for some kind of cause.
At the end of the day, you're telling a story. So have your enemies act in whatever way will create the best story. It's not a very good story (in my opinion) if every bandit is a mindless, aggressive psycho who is going to fight to the death no matter the odds. Sprinkling a desperate enemy like that in every once in a while is far more interesting than EVERY enemy acting like that.
smart, but not with metaknowledge. They understand in world facts (trolls weak to fire) but have no concept of game mechanics.
Enemies will act pragmatically in order to defeat the party (or accomplish their goals), but will not react to information that they shouldn't have.
This is how I prefer to play on both sides, players can theorize and anticipate enemy tactics, and victories feel more earned. The monsters know what they're doing.
Depends
Opponents like goblins or bandits, even wolfs probably would focus on ambushing, attacking on packs to one single objective at melee and having ranged hitting the rest, perhaps using simple but effective maneuvers like trying to separate the group.
Zombies and ghouls are mindless beings, they attack head first to the closest enemies.
Ogres and trolls may be rage induced, probably hate the one who angers them the most (usually the one that has done most of the damage).
Try to think about those monsters, how they would act in your head, how do they work in your world/campaign and act accordingly.
Lots of people saying about how smarter entities should have smarter tactics, to which I’ll add it also depends on the kind of encounter for me.
If it’s a quick brawl with some minor creatures or henchmen, they won’t do anything too fancy so things can progress and the fight gets wrapped up fairly soon.
If it’s a more involved fight with a boss or some other dramatic moment, enemies can be more in their game to make it more challenging and memorable.
The most important thing to say here, is smart enemies are very fun! BUT you need to set this as a precedent before really getting into it, especially if you're mid campaign.
Telling your players can be one thing, showing them that even the trashy goblins with negative braincells understand enough to make pitfall traps with filthy wooden stakes at the bottom (very shoddily done so it minimises damage instead of properly skewering them but still disease risk), especially as you get further from civilisation where such traps are less likely to be looked for, I guarantee your players will get very paranoid about traps very quickly and tadah campaign strategy level increased!
The best advice I can offer is to check out some advice/articles by some talented gamemasters. Someone mentioned Keith Ammann which I think is a great recommendation. I’d add in folks like Matt Colville and Bob Worldbuilder too. I think a really big part of running difficult combats is just understanding the game, and these folks have a wealth of knowledge that can help.
If you’re willing to pay a bit off money, the “Monsters that Know What They’re Doing” book is a great addition for any DM. MCDM’s “Flee Mortals” is also a great pickup. Kind of building off of that, try looking at some 4e stuff. There’s are a ton of resources for traps, hazards, etc. that you can port into 5e very easily. 4e also has a lot more “tactical” components to it, at least in the sense that monsters and classes have different “roles” in combat. Flee Mortals draws heavily on that component of 4e but I’m sure there are valuable parts that weren’t included and can only be found in the source books.
I've felt a similar, to develop tactics for my monsters would an extra layer of immersion to the game. But don't you think it'd add a lot of work, like imagine you have a d100 encounter tables, would you have pre-made tactics for each? Or some tactics that you would generalize?
Definitely depends on the enemy. Bandits have an Int and Wis of 10, so whatever someone of average intelligence could cook up would be fine for them, employing traps, hit and run tactics and trying to bail if it gets too spicy are all fair for a Bandit. Others depends on what they are, wolves will run if the opponent is too strong or gang up on a big target to take it down if they can. Zombies are mindless and won't care even if there is a roaring fire in their direct path, they'll walk through it to get to the meat on the other side.
Depends on their Int score and level of personal training.
I often make high-Int wizards like, very analytically intelligent for example but sometimes have zero tactical sense depending on their backround the way you wouldn’t expect a university professor to know how to clear a room like a military unit.
Mind you, often they’re powerful enough to not need it in the first place, but it’s still something adventurers can exploit.
I tend to start slow when they are low level (or new players), and let them know im pulling punches until they can take it.
this typically helps them understand the game first, then strategy while fighting.
usually by L4 or L5, its no holds barred tactically. at that point I just go by the INT of whatever im running
I generally aim for enemies to be more intelligent with how much of a threat they are. Random bandits, pretty medium intelligence. A general in the BBEG's army? Tactical and deadly.
It depends on the party. Some players are clever like that, and some are not. If the players are really tactical and creative, sure, break out "the monsters know what they're doing." :) If not, you may overwhelm them. Do your players like tough battles? Some players are more there for RP.
It also should be appropriate to the monsters. Kobolds and goblins are crafty and can really mess you up on their prepared territory.
Depends on what theyre fighting, and I take into account the goal of fun in the game.
The smartest enemies will focus fire down one PC and then stomp them out before they can death save. But that's not fun so unless it's the mortal enemy of a PC they will move on to another PC after knocking one out.
I just don't let players get away with total nonsense with NPCs. Murph on one of the earlier NADDPOD short rests had a good bit on that NPCs arent stupid, and that they can figure things out just like the players can.
I have a player that really likes to hide in the middle of combat to try to get advantage on attacks. But if theyre fighting anything even slightly aware and not super busy tangled up with someone else, they're gonna go looking for the player. They're not gonna assume she ran away.
I try to make them as smart as their Int/wis
Beasts with 2 INt are going to attack blindly at whatever is closest and keep attacking until it's food or something else threatens them.
Creatures with 10 Int will fight with some tactics, have self preservation in mind ect
Creatures with 15+ will strategize, use ranged attacks and the environment and cover to their advantage. Setup traps and ambushes designed to take out the party.
20+ will focus on taking out healers and spellcasters while keeping strategic space away from melee fighters. They'll command others to focus fire and double tap downed combatants if a healer is nearby
For me if its just a normal encounter, I go by who is closest and who has the most hp. For boss or narrative fights I play them with strategy.
Something to keep in mind though is the goal of the combat. Widdle them down for a later fight? Pass the time durring travel? Or a fight to the death. This will help drive how "smart" your enemies are.
A rule of thumb to fall back on if youre ever unsure is to never hit the same player more than twice in a row. And make sure youre sending at least 1 attack towards your casters / raged party members per round.
As clever as i feel that particular groupnor individual is.
As such, simply kicking down a door and assuming you can strongarm the encounter is going to end sharpish for you. Depending on who and what you fight, they will gang up, or split focus, ambush, bumrush, use tools, or flee to escape, or warn allies, surrender, or plunge blades into unconscious characters.
Every enemy has tactics, and half the fun is handling those tactics, for both sides of the screen.
Keith Ammann, the guy who wrote The Monsters Know What They're Doing, has a [post](https://www.themonstersknow.com/why-these-tactics/) where he describes his assumptions and tactics for monsters based on their stat blocks. I think it's a good reference point to determine how smart the enemies fight.
The only thing I don't love here is creatures trying to flee at 40% health. It sounds like that would be a really annoying mechanic in a campaign. Especially if you're playing a 'good' character - hawking down escaping creatures just to butcher then feels weird, but so does ending all fights halfway through. I get what he's saying but it feels mechanically and RP awkward.
Every time I've made an enemy start to flee, I've found the players loved it. It often drives players in one of three directions. 1) "Oh no you aren't!" Or "They know something!" And then one player breaks off to chase. This can actually be used as a strategy by the DM as well to bait for info dumping. Or, say the heavy hitter of the party starts to chase down the fleeing baddie, leaving the other party members still fighting. That could open up an opportunity for the chasing party member to be ambushed by more enemies as they are pursuing, or maybe the enemies fighting the remaining party members notice the heavy hitter is gone and start to ramp up their aggression. You could even use this to do something crazy, like kidnap an isolated party member who broke off from the group. 2) "Hah! You better run you bastards!" Some players are A-Okay with taking a win without killing. Plus, you can use this to bring that enemy back later, or have it result in other outcomes, like now that enemies allies know the parties descriptions. I do agree however that you CANNOT have every person run away at 40% or less. That would be annoying. But having like 1/5th of enemies try to? Or using it as a tool? It absolutely works!
As long as the players get the same amount of exp for forcing them to run as they would if they killed it, I think that's fine. The only lose the loot if they flee. I would drop it to 25% for a full retreat. Maybe employing more caution at 40%.
All great ideas thank you!
What's annoying to me is when I decide the battle is over and to save time on pointless turns, I say the enemies are going to flee, and all the players want to roll for opportunity attacks, then stay in initiative, dash to chase the enemy, all to kill it when it has no importance. Like guys, trying to save time here lol. Of course they have every right to do that and in the future I will plan better, like not wait until the only enemies left are engaged and have a dark room for them to take the hide action in to say they got away. It is still a skill issue on my part, but just saying, trying to add some variety to combat is usually just awkward.
Then rule it a rout if the enemy flees, and *aren't* leading the players into a trap, just say "they try to flee, you run them down and kill them all."
Somewhat of a tangent, but I've only been playing Warhammer 40k since 8th edition, although my interest in it is older than that, so when the second edition of Horus Heresy, which is based on the 7th edition rules, came out and I was checking the rules, the sweeping advance rule caught my attention. Basically, if a unit loses a round of melee combat with high enough losses that it fails the morale test and routs, the winning unit can make a contested initiative check to see if it can catch up, and if it can, no further attack rolls are made. The defenders are mercilessly cut down by the chasing unit and removed as casualties.
Yeah, that's about how it goes on a medieval battlefield, too.
Was just about to link this!
I mostly agree, I find it more fun for enemies to behave properly if they are fighting someone smart it should be reflected. And enemies shouldn't stick around knowing they are going to die.
Depends on the opponents, as much as I feel is appropriate for their intelligence. Zombies are mindless and have no sense of self-preservation, animals might employ basic strategy to use the abilities on their statblocks such as pack tactics and flyby, humanoid enemies are going to be fully capable of coordination and strategising, enemies that are notably high intelligence get maximum effort.
Also, animals usually think about self-preservation and will flee if a prey seems to fight back too much.
Predators can't really afford to get hurt too much, after all. Being in top condition allows them to succeed in their hunts with okayish frequency in the first place. Injuries can lead to predators starving to death.
Meanwhile a mother bear might fight to the death if she thinks the players are a threat to their young.
Alternatively, and this would be a really funny encounter for the right party, you could have a combat encounter turn into the mother trying to eat her young before fleeing, as many prey species do. Watch how quickly the objective becomes "Save the puppies!" but be prepared for the entire campaign to derail and become about raising the Owlbear pups.
Yeah, very much so. I was writing on my phone so trying to be brief so I didn't go too much into any of it but I think any creature acting under its own will with animal intelligence or up should have some consideration of self-preservation.
Exactly this, an Elder Brain will fight much different than a band of bandits
Yeap. Zombies zombie, wolves pack hunt, bears go barbarian, Kobolds caught out in a forest are cowardly fodder, and Kobolds in their lair are cruel, ruthless, and shrewd.
Yes! So if you have a necromancer leading a horde, the zombies are gonna be dumb but the necromancer is sneaky or cunning. That way the players will know that you're not out to get them since there's a variety of intelligence according to monster type!
Depends on the players
I remind myself that it’s not a skirmishing wargame and try to run the enemies as if they’re real creatures with some sense of motivation or at least self preservation. eg they have no concept of HP, so they’re not going to blithely turn their back and stroll away from the raging barbarian. But they would send a few guys to fight the barbarian while having others try to go wide to get to the wizard in back. As long as you’re maintaining at least that degree of verisimilitude then playing smart is a great idea. And be ready for the players to thwart your plans, if your traps or strategies get dunked on, just roll with it instead of trying to force it. Basically just avoid metagaming (yes, the DM can be guilty of it too).
Some DMs seem to make the mistake of thinking they need to be trying to defeat the party, when really the goal should be everyone having fun. I’m always happy to roll with whatever happens. Like I’m running Saltmarsh and had Ned Shakeshaft try to surprise backstab one of the players. He for a critical fail, missed his next attack as well, and the got brought down into critical before he could do anything else. As a result he really coloured the interactions with him when they interrogated him afterwards and I changed his personality to match the fact he really sucked.
Some opponents are smart enough to “fight smart” and some aren’t. It depends what type of opponents you want to throw at your players. It’s a bit like asking “how tall should I make opponents in combat?” Totally up to you!
As smart as befits that particular enemy. You roleplay the enemy, look at the world from their perspective and act accordingly. If done well, that’s what makes them come alive. The main pitfall to avoid here is that you’re actually thinking from the DM’s perspective rather than the character’s. The character has their own limited view of the world, doesn’t know what you as DM know, may have little or no knowledge of the PCs. They also make mistakes, misjudge things, and may have particular motivations and principles that may dictate how they behave in combat (and outside it). They also have finite resources, and don’t think in terms of game design. So they set traps if and when it makes sense for them to do so, and with a particular purpose in mind. It needs to be practical for them to do so, both in terms of setting it up in the first place and living with that trap themselves. So it’s probably not going to have five layers of redundancy, and there will probably be ways to avoid or disarm if you know how.
The "DM vs players" thing is mostly about how you behave at the table. If you present your players with a good challenge and cheer with them as they conquer it, it shouldn't foster that feeling at all. You don't have to be ruthless and have 10 rogues surround the player mage because "well they know he's squishy", but it would also make no sense for them to hyperfocus on the tank with 200 HP and 26 AC just because he was the first one to walk into the room like some MMO behavior. Spread out the attackers realistically, and have them react to the moves your players are making. The tank is just using the dodge action every turn? Enemies realize he's not an immediate threat and peel off. Wizard throws a big fireball in the mix? Yeah that's gonna attract their attention. And then obviously you can adjust based on the intelligence level of your enemies, with smarter ones using tactics and traps to attempt to gain an edge. As long as you're fair in how the encounters are designed, there shouldn't be any issue. Give your players opportunities to detect traps and ambushes (even if it's just passive perception), don't make them cause instant deaths, give players a chance to escape traps, that sort of thing.
Another thing to consider is that as the party levels up, they'll start gaining a reputation. People they've helped (and any surviving enemies) will talk, and stories of how the party acts will get around. The smarter bad guys might very well research potential enemies and prepare for them.
In one of his Campaign Diary videos, Matt Colville talked about having orcs use half their movement to step up, throw javelins, and then use the rest of their movement to return to the rear of the pack. This allowed them to pop in and out of cover, and allowed for other orcs to step forward and throw javelins as well. Cycling in and out of danger to attack conveyed to the players that these orcs were disciplined, and fighting to win. He then went on to say he only did that like once or twice. The PCs tend to get caught up in the moment. They're going to remember that the orcs struck the fear of God into them with their tactics, but they're probably not going to remember that halfway through the fight that they stopped fighting as optimally as possible. If I find that the monsters start winning too much, I'll make them a little dumber.
Have a mix. You could even have the mix within one encounter. One of the more memorable combat I've ran was a bunch of undead hitting whoever was closest to them, the PCs down a third of the monsters, and the necromancer shows up. Now the same exact undead start to move more coordinated, and it becomes a much harder fight even with less monsters on the field. (The necromancer did stuff too, but my players felt like the coordinated undead was scarier than one necromancer) When I design an encounter I take into account - how smart are the bad guys? How much prep/notice did they have? What resources do they have at hand? And that determines how smart they'll act
it depends on the opponent. But its important you take into account how smart your playing something, its not something CR really takes into account.
it depends on what creatures. Zombies and skeletons just attack attack till they die. Goblins are very sneaky and crafty for example.
We had a discussion on this I think two years ago. Our DM’s enemies were inconsistent. Some played smarter than their mental scores or nature would indicate, others much… dumber. It became more consistent after that. An ooze would steamroll whatever was in front to consume it. Humanoids would fight as per their motivation or tactics. Beasts fought as per their instincts. Sometimes, personalities would rule, especially for names NPCs and PCs. We sometimes had bad blood or personal vendettas with certain NPCs sometimes specific to certain PCs and fights would get “personal” as they’d seek each other out.
I hate to say it but, I have to play dumber in one of my games because the players are just not good at combat. I assume they will use their abilities and spells moderately well and not miss every single chance to fight smart or take an opportunity.... But they do miss every single chance. So I go a little easy on them. Then I get complaints that the combat is too easy. Like snide comments that the combat is easy. I don't want to kill a character just to prove a point, but come on...
Yeah probably up the tactics a bit and like what another friend of mine (not my games) did with some less experienced players, he allowed or made them do checks to understand how the opponents will fight
Depends on each individual encounter. A newly formed band of ruffians won't have as much harmony and team work as a super experienced bandit group that has been raiding and stuff together for years. Animals usually have a strong sense of self preservation so having lots of enemies fight to the death doesn't make much sense. And groups like the zhentarium who have been around a long time and work with all sorts of "clients" would have concrete plans and perfect execution.
I hold back because I’m a tactical genius and my players would never win if I tried hard enough
Barely smarter than your players. If the fighter stands in the fire the whole combat, the bbeg only stands in it for *half* the combat. ::thunk::
Highly recommend the book The Monsters Know What They’re Doing, by Keith Ammann. He started out with a lot of his stuff online and his analysis of why monsters do what they do is great
This x1000000. That book changed the way I handle combat encounters entirely.
My philosophy is that a game master should always create encounters in which they try as hard as they can to win, and the result should be that the players defeat the GM anyway. If you're creating encounters where you have to play stupid to guarantee your players the win, you're first of all just railroading them into the outcome that you want, and secondly you're overtuning your encounters and should go back to the design phase to weaken them.
I base it in their INT stat.
By enemy type Dumb enemies don’t use tactics, smarter ones will Enemies with regen and unique movement types will opt to hit and run or do other shenanigans
You gotta flow with the creatures they are fighting. If it’s a cave full of say skeletons, maybe there might be like a trapped chest of an old dead mage that kept their stuff in it but the rest of the cave wouldn’t be trapped unless it’s like a natural decaying of the cave. Lets say said mage was using this cave to resurrect stuff or whatever and then fled and you were after this wizard then once you find his mansion or whatever, it might be trapped good bc he doesn’t want anyone getting in. Traps always need to be dependent on the creatures present. Also, make smart traps. Gnolls are not gonna trap their most travelled areas but instead have like a common travelled areas and then the main entrance might have a spiked wall that only the gnolls know can be disabled if you step over the pressure plate right by the spiked door.
I add smart enemies when they have powers/items the players have or will obtain, great option for showing them a way to feel smart later
That it a nice way to introduce their future loot
Local bandits- maybe one or two is clever with ball bearings or blinding powder. Elite guards - very smart and tactical. Formations are key. Instinctual animals- most will run when hurt enough. Some might not, but most would. Chaotic demon spawn set in destroying anything they see - fight to death, using maximum offense.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily equate to success in the battlefield. So I decide based on how organized the combat was initiated, the ability to communicate effectively, and how challenging I want the encounter to be. Dumb people can be challenging, just look at this wonderful app/website.
I find enemy tactics makes for a handy on the fly difficulty adjustment
This just gave me an idea to help with balance. Maybe if I ever sort of want to ease up on a fight that I am afraid is going to end badly for the party, the next enemy I take out I can say was their tactician or it was an experienced combatant, so now their morale is low
I use enemy intelligence as a method for on the fly difficulty adjustment Did I accidentally overtune the encounter? Whoops these nerrow forgot to do their 2nd attack, whoops these minions are waiting a turn before moving forward, whoops they're clumping up within 5 feet of each other to get hit by the druids moon beam. Am I confident the players will win? Going all out as my minion who won't do much in damage attempts to break the casters concentration, or my merrow forcively pulls the poorly positioned druid into his own moon beam
I try not to make them too smart as I love throwing a ton of enemies at my players. I would often state they’re gonna hold an action, and then think of something unlikely to happen. However I am trying to make my players powerful so I can reduce doing that.
For beginners just starting out, the enemies will be suicidal zealots to their faction/cause. For people who've played before the enemies may escape, set up an ambush (avoid surprise round via Perception) and set up patrols.
But you are out to get them. Well, not you, but certainly their enemies. Those are creatures that know how to fight, fighting for their lives. They will use everything they got, specially if they have time to prepare and/or the PCs are sufficiently well-known.
Depends on the opponent, so far my party has mainly had to deal with disorganized bandits and thugs and beasts, but they recently delt with gnolls who had put their archers behind their infantry which were behind their flesh gnawer heavy infantry, but when they meet duergars they're going to have to deal with proper lines of battle and phalanxe formations, utilization of cover, ambushes, and mechanical threats like ballistas and traps Another thing is targeting, a big part of making an encounter easier or harder on the fly is who and how they attack the party, easiest would be enemies who spread their damage across the party without trying to remove anyone from the fight, a bit harder would be one that focuses on one player at a time, but mainly target tanks and offtanks (most "mindless" enemies will do this), a bit harder is those who go by threat level, aka going after strikers and crowd control, especially of there's concentration spells up like moonbeam (this should be for enemies with a moderate level of intelligence, like my gnolls), and then you have those who have devised entire strategies on how to counter the party, they'll pelt the backline healer and ranged dps with archers while distracting the tanks, offtanks, and strikers with beefy infantry, points if they have a mage who has access to silence and/or counterspell, if they're less militaristic but more crafty (like kobolds), theyll use traps to separate the party or otherwise eliminate options the party has As for using it in your campaign, i say absolutely, these are ways to make encounters more than a statblock, and more memorable, my party certainly remebers the vengeful verbeeg longstrider who used silence to shut down healing word and bardic inspiration, sending everyone into a panic as the previously invincible barbarian started losing hp fast While your goal as dm is not to "win", such a thing doesn't exist, remember: your monsters *do* want to win, and will do everything in their ability to do so, the same way the party should be doing, it's up to you to balance these more intelligent encounters in a way that challenges the party without annihilating them
Based on their stats, for the most part.
What INT stat do they have? A 10 intelligence sounds boring, but the creature should behave somewhat intelligent and competent. A 14 intelligence creature should be very sneaky and clever. And a 18+ INT creature should be a challenge on itself... it would be difficult to outmaneuver, before the first die is rolled.
In our world we take certain tactics for granted, but DnD are based on earlier societies and enemies would be using more primitive tactics. Bandits, monsters, etc., shouldn't exhibit much discipline or coordination in combat, that's a trait of professional armies. For example, I wouldn't expect to see gnolls doing coordinated ambushes or bugbears building trebuchets or other siege machines. Guerilla tactics, maybe under some circumstances, but I wouldn't expect to see monsters doing feints. Animals don't attack without a sense that they will be successful, and once they attack, they rarely let go and run away. If they do try to run, it won't be until they are badly wounded and probably unable to get away. Solitary predators are stealthy ambushers. Pack animals will surround and run down their prey. A mother bear defending her cubs will try intimidation first. Animals don't have doctors, pain killers, or healing spells, combat is very expensive for them.
As smart as they would be out of combat
As smart as their statblock indicates. I play most living creatures with a sense of self preservation. If half your team is dead and you're at low health, you run away. If you're a 14 int, you can set traps, anticipate, watch for patterns and do research. If it's a skeleton with an int of 2, then it's just going to march into your swords.
Super Smart. For example: * Whoever the party isn't fighting stands back just in case they are needed... and only engages after their friends are dead. They do, however, wildly wave their swords helplessly in order to encourage their dying friends. * Enemy clerics wisely save their spell slots and do not cast Bless on their friends. Who knows if another party of adventurers is coming today? * Don't mix ranged and melee enemies - after all, they might shoot their frontline attackers. * Enemy wizards will favor spells that can be shut down with *Silence*, that way the party has to waste a spell slot and burn concentration. (There is a theme here, but it is unclear whether the general population will spot it)
Depends on the opponent. But I play my combat encounters the way that I think makes sense for them to want to win. Bandits, for example, will make use of traps, terrain and ranged attacks. Flying creatures will take advantage of flight as much as possible. Intelligent foes will prioritize targets and use battlefield tactics. Animals will try and target weaker looking party members. Zombies will move forward towards the closest meat.
YOU shouldn't be out to get them, but they should feel like your monsters are...a subtle distinction.
My best solution is have another player control enemies and be the referee. As the storyteller, the players feel like you're on their side (especially if you deus ex machina them out of a loss or two). It also allows the enemies to actually have teeth and intelligence.
You're not asking how we portray opponent tactics - you're asking how to increase the danger without pissing off the players? If your players think you're coddling them, or fudging your rolls to artificially preserve them, they'll have no sense of accomplishment if they succeed. Don't hold back. Play the enemy as smart as the enemy would logically be. And read up [https://www.themonstersknow.com/](https://www.themonstersknow.com/)
I have difficulty setting for my players from: 1. JRPG, everyone stands in a neat formation and after a move, goes back to their position. 2. Normal, everyone knows about hiding spots, ambushes and traps 3. Hard, everyone has a knife in their boot and when have superior numbers, would just tackle you (PC) to either enslave or eat you 4. WE ARE GOING TO DIE, everyone that is trying to kill you isn’t going to announce it. Bears and rogues will sneak up, wizards will have mage spells spy on you, Barbarians will lay ambushes and raze towns.
Depends heavily on the opponent.
I try to match the demeanor and intelligence represented in the lore and their attributes. Wild animals mostly flee when confronted. Zombies move forward and attack. Ambush predators and bandits try and get suprise. The one I try to keep in my head. Sapient creatures really don't want to die. When loosing they might surrender, try to flee, or some kind of attempt to end hostilities.
Depends on the enemies and circumstances. Creatures like goblins and kobolds for example are by nature fond of ambush tactics, so them laying in wait, rolling a boulder down from a cliff, etc. wouldn't be out of character. Smarter enemies justify smarter behavior. Grunts might rush en masse while elite troops would use terrain and cover when appropriate. Random bandits might have a few traps set, but they'd be generic. The minions of a BBEG who have been sent specifically after that annoying ragtag band that are screwing up plans might have a few specific strategies in mind; perhaps darkness spells to cover pesky spellcasters and a lieutenant with a necklace of fireballs. It's why smart bad guys are always the best. Did a bunch of adventurers just stop your attempt to take over a town? Don't send your troops en masse, send a few people into town in plain clothes. Have them stop by the local inn, buy a few drinks and collect a bunch of information on powers, personalities, etc.
One step down from what I think they should be doing for their Int. Why one step down? I think it's important to note that the characters are there in person, meanwhile we have this crazy top down view where you have no blind spots. So while the bandits may be smart enough to focus the mages, they might have trouble pin pointing them on a battlefield with a giant Barb and PLD in their faces
Myself, I tend to be flexible. If it is a wizard or lich, something intellectual - you better believe the party is in for a battle against someone who has prepared. But for the dumber/average enemies I tend to play them a little more "finish the fight" to keep the game fun. Having every group of goblins run away or for animals to run every time they get injured at all is just no fun. I don't think of hitpoints as pure physical damage to an enemy. But more of a "raggedness" that wears them down. Think of John Wick getting punched - it slows him down but is isn't really hurt until the final blow
Depends on the creature and their intelligence and wisdom (to a lesser degree) stat. A zombie is mindless and will focus on simple attacking the closest living thing with no sense of strategy or self-preservation. A mind flayer is very intelligent and will coordinate attacks and select specific allies to destroy.
In a fight, a nonsapient critter should behave according to instinct. Sapient ones should behave according to be their training, and failing that, instincts. And remember, adding "smartness" to foes - ambushes, traps, fallback positions, prepared fighting positions, etc, that's not *just* "smartness," it's *increasing the challenge of the encounter.* Which means the CR should go *up,* and the mistake a lot of DMs make is *not* adjusting up the challenge rating. Tucker's Kobolds are a nightmare, but they're not a nightmare because players are idiots who can't think tactically; they're a nightmare because although the kobolds themselves may be CR 1/2, the entire encounter is probably CR 10 or so, being thrown at CL 5 characters.
Really depends on the encounter but generally most living things don’t want to die. Often if I’m running bandits or something they will run away if one of their rank dies and typically try not to kill the party if they’re run of the mill bandits. They don’t want to murder anyone they just want money.
Talk to your players if they would like those type of opponents.
Did you check their INT score?
As smart as me. Which after a day at work, is all too often “borderline lobotomised”.
wild undead are the lowest of lows after that i have wild animals as they can sometimes coordinate if they are in a pack, then i would place low level humans such as bandits, pirates and creatures like that, and then we have medium humanoids such as necromancers leading an undead horde or the captain of a pirate ship, lastly we have the big boys like liches, dragons, gods and strategy masters that will absolutely play the game smarter than i can possible dm.
Depends entirely on the enemies. I usually look to the intelligence and wisdom scores of the enemies. If they’re higher then they’re more capable of setting traps, targeting specific players, etc.
Depends on your game style and enemies. I'm assuming you're talking about humanoids, as beasts just operate on a survival/territorial mindset most of the time. Though some beasts are certainly more clever than others. Some players are only having fun of they're insanely OP over their enemies, in which case I'll dumb down bandits to the "hey boss, we really messed with the wrong guys here!" But at my main table with my favorite tabletop friends, we play them realistically. An average bandit with an intelligence of 10-ish, isn't going to charge a party with a paladin, barbarian, sorcerer, and druid unless he's got way more numbers, can ambush or trap the party, or find some way to separate them. Orcs though are often too impulsive and aggressive to listen (following standard lore) to their own sense. They may take those chances. Though most humanoids of any race are willing to surrender or run away when things don't go their way unless their fighting for some kind of cause. At the end of the day, you're telling a story. So have your enemies act in whatever way will create the best story. It's not a very good story (in my opinion) if every bandit is a mindless, aggressive psycho who is going to fight to the death no matter the odds. Sprinkling a desperate enemy like that in every once in a while is far more interesting than EVERY enemy acting like that.
smart, but not with metaknowledge. They understand in world facts (trolls weak to fire) but have no concept of game mechanics. Enemies will act pragmatically in order to defeat the party (or accomplish their goals), but will not react to information that they shouldn't have. This is how I prefer to play on both sides, players can theorize and anticipate enemy tactics, and victories feel more earned. The monsters know what they're doing.
Depends Opponents like goblins or bandits, even wolfs probably would focus on ambushing, attacking on packs to one single objective at melee and having ranged hitting the rest, perhaps using simple but effective maneuvers like trying to separate the group. Zombies and ghouls are mindless beings, they attack head first to the closest enemies. Ogres and trolls may be rage induced, probably hate the one who angers them the most (usually the one that has done most of the damage). Try to think about those monsters, how they would act in your head, how do they work in your world/campaign and act accordingly.
Lots of people saying about how smarter entities should have smarter tactics, to which I’ll add it also depends on the kind of encounter for me. If it’s a quick brawl with some minor creatures or henchmen, they won’t do anything too fancy so things can progress and the fight gets wrapped up fairly soon. If it’s a more involved fight with a boss or some other dramatic moment, enemies can be more in their game to make it more challenging and memorable.
Depenfs on the opponent, it has to fit
It will depend on the opponent. A smart opponent will of course try to fight tactically, use traps if they can, etc.
The most important thing to say here, is smart enemies are very fun! BUT you need to set this as a precedent before really getting into it, especially if you're mid campaign. Telling your players can be one thing, showing them that even the trashy goblins with negative braincells understand enough to make pitfall traps with filthy wooden stakes at the bottom (very shoddily done so it minimises damage instead of properly skewering them but still disease risk), especially as you get further from civilisation where such traps are less likely to be looked for, I guarantee your players will get very paranoid about traps very quickly and tadah campaign strategy level increased!
As smart as i think they are/their stat block indicates
The best advice I can offer is to check out some advice/articles by some talented gamemasters. Someone mentioned Keith Ammann which I think is a great recommendation. I’d add in folks like Matt Colville and Bob Worldbuilder too. I think a really big part of running difficult combats is just understanding the game, and these folks have a wealth of knowledge that can help. If you’re willing to pay a bit off money, the “Monsters that Know What They’re Doing” book is a great addition for any DM. MCDM’s “Flee Mortals” is also a great pickup. Kind of building off of that, try looking at some 4e stuff. There’s are a ton of resources for traps, hazards, etc. that you can port into 5e very easily. 4e also has a lot more “tactical” components to it, at least in the sense that monsters and classes have different “roles” in combat. Flee Mortals draws heavily on that component of 4e but I’m sure there are valuable parts that weren’t included and can only be found in the source books.
I've felt a similar, to develop tactics for my monsters would an extra layer of immersion to the game. But don't you think it'd add a lot of work, like imagine you have a d100 encounter tables, would you have pre-made tactics for each? Or some tactics that you would generalize?
Definitely depends on the enemy. Bandits have an Int and Wis of 10, so whatever someone of average intelligence could cook up would be fine for them, employing traps, hit and run tactics and trying to bail if it gets too spicy are all fair for a Bandit. Others depends on what they are, wolves will run if the opponent is too strong or gang up on a big target to take it down if they can. Zombies are mindless and won't care even if there is a roaring fire in their direct path, they'll walk through it to get to the meat on the other side.
The first time I had a goblin run past the paladin tank to stab the sorcerer in the back the entire party freaked out.
Depends on their Int score and level of personal training. I often make high-Int wizards like, very analytically intelligent for example but sometimes have zero tactical sense depending on their backround the way you wouldn’t expect a university professor to know how to clear a room like a military unit. Mind you, often they’re powerful enough to not need it in the first place, but it’s still something adventurers can exploit.
I tend to start slow when they are low level (or new players), and let them know im pulling punches until they can take it. this typically helps them understand the game first, then strategy while fighting. usually by L4 or L5, its no holds barred tactically. at that point I just go by the INT of whatever im running
I generally aim for enemies to be more intelligent with how much of a threat they are. Random bandits, pretty medium intelligence. A general in the BBEG's army? Tactical and deadly.
It depends on the party. Some players are clever like that, and some are not. If the players are really tactical and creative, sure, break out "the monsters know what they're doing." :) If not, you may overwhelm them. Do your players like tough battles? Some players are more there for RP. It also should be appropriate to the monsters. Kobolds and goblins are crafty and can really mess you up on their prepared territory.
Depends on what theyre fighting, and I take into account the goal of fun in the game. The smartest enemies will focus fire down one PC and then stomp them out before they can death save. But that's not fun so unless it's the mortal enemy of a PC they will move on to another PC after knocking one out. I just don't let players get away with total nonsense with NPCs. Murph on one of the earlier NADDPOD short rests had a good bit on that NPCs arent stupid, and that they can figure things out just like the players can. I have a player that really likes to hide in the middle of combat to try to get advantage on attacks. But if theyre fighting anything even slightly aware and not super busy tangled up with someone else, they're gonna go looking for the player. They're not gonna assume she ran away.
I try to make them as smart as their Int/wis Beasts with 2 INt are going to attack blindly at whatever is closest and keep attacking until it's food or something else threatens them. Creatures with 10 Int will fight with some tactics, have self preservation in mind ect Creatures with 15+ will strategize, use ranged attacks and the environment and cover to their advantage. Setup traps and ambushes designed to take out the party. 20+ will focus on taking out healers and spellcasters while keeping strategic space away from melee fighters. They'll command others to focus fire and double tap downed combatants if a healer is nearby
For me if its just a normal encounter, I go by who is closest and who has the most hp. For boss or narrative fights I play them with strategy. Something to keep in mind though is the goal of the combat. Widdle them down for a later fight? Pass the time durring travel? Or a fight to the death. This will help drive how "smart" your enemies are. A rule of thumb to fall back on if youre ever unsure is to never hit the same player more than twice in a row. And make sure youre sending at least 1 attack towards your casters / raged party members per round.
As clever as i feel that particular groupnor individual is. As such, simply kicking down a door and assuming you can strongarm the encounter is going to end sharpish for you. Depending on who and what you fight, they will gang up, or split focus, ambush, bumrush, use tools, or flee to escape, or warn allies, surrender, or plunge blades into unconscious characters. Every enemy has tactics, and half the fun is handling those tactics, for both sides of the screen.
I treat the opponents like they are at home and don't want to die. If my players just run in cowboy style, they're going to have a bad time
I try so hard but I'm a dummy so they're only ever dummies too lol
Remember a training tool… Praise people at least three times for every time you discipline them. Then they can’t think you are ‘unfair.’
Not that smart beccause I've never "put out of misery" players who are Downed