|
2 years ago ::
Jul 08, 2011 - 11:05PM
#1
|
|
|
These is the single most common questions I find myself stuck with often when I DM.
The second question may be easiest to answer:
1. Are monster aware of all the things that placed upon them?
Several parts to this:
a. Clearly they are aware of damage and conditions such as slowed, dazed, etc. but what about more subtle conditions, like a -2 to attack rolls?
b. What about if-then conditions, such as "if the creature leaves the zone, then they take damage." or a defenders mark.
c. What about conditions that are placed on their enemies (the PCs) that are personal. Such as a stance by a fighter, or the temple of light by an avenger.
2. With your answers in mind to 1a-c, how do the monsters react? Do monsters trigger a mark once, then learn from the mistake? Do minions swipe at a spirit companion for 8 turns doing absolutely nothing because they are mindless zombies? Do the monsters have full knowledge of all the active powers and act accordingly?
On a side note:
The reason I ask, is that in several different campaigns there are the following:
Shielding swordmage with many feats buffing the mark. The problem? Player complains that the mark never gets triggered and feels like the feats are a waste.
Pursuit avenger. The problem? Monsters don't want to move away from him willingly to that they don't take the extra damage. Complains that hey doesn't get his "striker damage", especially compared to the ranger who has the quarry.
Any help here would be great. I havn't really seen other people DM, or handle these sitations.
I have read the arguments about how monsters try to break the front line and would like to get more sensitive party members, but how thier behavior is affected based on powers/feats/abilities is another story.
Sorry for the long post, but it has confused me for some time now.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 09, 2011 - 12:42AM
#2
|
|
|
Monsters are "aware" (i.e. as DM you can take full account of) all effects directly applied to them. This is in the rules as "Game Transparency", but annoyingly not in the Compendium, so I cannot give you a reference. So answering your questions. 1a) Yes a Monster is "aware" of a -2 to hit 1b) Yes a monster is "aware" of a condition inside a power such as "if the target moves away it takes X damage". Generally the point of powers that do that is to trap the monster so that whatever it does something bad happens to it. As DM you haveto figure out the least bad thing. Sometimes that means triggering the damage or other penalty. However . . . by RAW when a monster is marked or close to a PC, it is not aware of interrupt and trigger powers that the PCs have, such as a Swordmage's punishment effect. 1c) A monster is not "aware" directly of the effects of stances, but will be aware of the impact to them if they are hit by an attack whilst the character is in a stance. The above is the standard set of knowledge that even slimes and giant insects should access to decide tactics. In addition, some monsters are smart. They can figure stuff out, or have similar experience to PCs when it comes to marks (i.e. they don't know what the character can do, but may not be in a hurry to figure it out, especially if they can be effective by attacking the defender in any case). 2) Several parts to this:
- The monsters react tactically soundly on all knowledge they are officially "aware" of, even if they are dumb automatons. They can take actions to avoid auto-damage, or decide to ignore it in favour of making an attack if they have enough hit points not to care too much.
- Smart monsters will base decisions on what the PCs look like, are equipped with
- Smart monsters will figure out what PCs can do quickly based on noticing a single example happening nearby on the same battle.
- Monsters on the same team talk to each other. Powerful abilities of heroes will become locally, regionally or world-wide famous (in heroic, paragon and epic tier play respectively).
Apart from the first part, the rest relies on your subjective opinions as a DM. For guidance watch how the players react - they quickly pick up on general capabilities of monsters and can often predict things based onwhat they look like.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 09, 2011 - 5:39AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2010
|
exactly what slobo said.
Plus: Many mnonster descriptions feature a short break down of the tactics that the monster in question applies. E.g. Orc Berserkers charge the weakest target and try to smash it to bits, with low to no regard to any penalties inflicted. If you use these directions consistently this can strongly contribute to the differences between different monsters of the same class. This way overcoming an encounter including the afforementioned orc berserker will require different tactics then an encounter featuring e.g. a Dragonborn Brigand who will actively seek to flank and would not trigger a mark if he has the option to attack the groups defender with CA (for example making a bluff check to gain CA).
So the general answer is "nes". Read the monsters description and think of how the monster would act based on it's previous experiences (maybe it heard of how it's friends or allies were slaughtered and seeks revenge on a specific player or knows to keep a good distance from a melee striker)
Best,
chillhelm
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 09, 2011 - 10:04AM
#4
|
|
|
OK... this all seems very flexible, and I guess it is my job as the DM to determine the monsters course of action. I just have a hard time deciding when to break away from a mark or other tactical decision. I get chillhelms suggestions but not every monster has this desciption type.
A generalization:
Soldiers: attempt to mark and keep the PCs away from weaker allies.
Skirmishers: Stay mobile, attempt to break the front line, flank enemies.
Brute: ????
Artillery: Stay out of melee and stay mobile to hammer PCs with damaging ranged attacks.
Correct me if I am wrong. I hope this might help with monster tactics.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 09, 2011 - 10:07AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 28, 2010
|
My monsters are 100% aware of all the conditions directly placed upon them, but not aware of any interrupt/free/no action as a result of his actions. In example, monster A marked by fighter B does not know that when he shifts he will get attacked, but does know that he has a -2 penalty to attack other PCs. If warlock B uses Hellish Rebuke on monster A, monster A does know that he will take damage if warlock B is damaged before the end of his next turn, because it takes no action (not even a 'no action') to trigger that damage.
However, I do play my monsters and the effects quite intelligently, or at least try to, so the mark of fighter B would in this case mean that fighter B is so aggressive towards monster A (keeping in mind that combat is actually not an attack followed by 6 seconds of waiting and repeat) that monster A is basically pinned down and cannot do anything but fight fighter B. Moving away, even shifting, would open up an opportunity for fighter B to hit him.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 09, 2011 - 5:58PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2010
|
I try to run monsters based on their intelligence and immediate goals. Is this creature content when marked to face off against one PC or does the monster really want to get to another PC? This sort of thinking covers most circumstances.
In many other cases - where I have doubt as to what the monster will do - I quickly come up with 2 or 3 possible actions and roll a d6 to determine which (often weighting the results) - sometimes I even toss in an unexpected action. For example a monster gets marked by a defender - I may quickly decide 1,2,3 monster fights defender, 4,5 monster turns and attacks a "squishier" target, 6 monster retreats and goes total defense for a round or does something else unexpected. Then I stick by my die roll - I tend to use this a lot - occasionaly I even anounce I am making a random roll to see what this monster does and roll it openly. This also becomes a subtle way my players can realize which group of monsters act with purpose (no randomness to their actions) vs. those that act in a less predictable and unsure way.
I also revert to die rolls any time I start to feel like I'm unfairly avoiding players powers with tactics. It creates a nice middle ground between playing the monster deliberately dumb to be fair to players, and playing them as master tacticians using unfair DM knowledge.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 09, 2011 - 6:53PM
#7
|
|
|
I prefer to play monsters a bit more "emotionally" than other seem to. If the defender keeps infuriating a monster by not letting it escape, basically, then it's not necessarily going to make tactically sound decisions. Same thing with other combat situations. Players sometimes attack something cuz it's pissed them off, rather than because it's a good idea.
I also let golems and slimes and the like act more stupidly than other monsters.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 10, 2011 - 1:51AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Game Transparency only apply to what you can possibly know. A creature in an Aura should know what can happen to them, as vaguely or detailed the DM establishes it as per the effect directly affecting it. For Defender's Aura. the creature knows it suffer a -2 to hit for attacks not including the Knight as a Target and that being Marked stop it from being subjected to this effect. That's all it knows. Creatures in the Aura are not aware of Battle Guardian's effect or any other Powers that can trigger off of Shifting, or Attacking one of the Knight's ally. What monsters know, and what monsters can learn are two things to keep in mind. Non-mindless Monsters, from the voracious Hyenas Pack to the sneaky Kobold bands, just like PC, will survey their environement looking to what happens to their comrades/brethens etc...so that they may later make different decisions after having witnessed certain behavior or reaction. PHB 57 Hit: Whenever you affect a creature with a power, that creature knows exactly what you’ve done to it and what conditions you’ve imposed. For example, when a paladin uses divine challenge against an enemy, the enemy knows that it has been marked and that it will therefore take a penalty to attack rolls and some damage if it attacks anyone aside from the paladin.
RC 90 Power: A concious creature affected by a Power knows what a Power has done to it, regardless of the power's type.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 10, 2011 - 2:44AM
#9
|
|
|
Well said.
After that point, it's largely DMing style. My DMing style includes tactically unsound options when I feel the creature would make that decision, regardless of metagame knowledge (it also includes good tactical decision, of course.) Other DMs may metagame like mad to pose the greatest challenge to the party.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jul 10, 2011 - 3:26AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 28, 2010
|
And for me it also depends how the party is doing. I try not to go deus ex machina, but sometimes I feel too much like I did something wrong, like going level + 2 encounter difficulty when they're already worn out or the likes. Other times, I'm a merciless bastard. 
|
|
|
