Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every monster gets its own initiative. I can't believe it's even an issue. Why would they be grouped? There's nothing to even suggest grouping them.
If rolling more initiatives is an issue, pre-roll them.
|
|
Being that half of my gaming is via PbP, and speaking mainly from the PbP perspective, I do very often group similar enemies together, and should point out that this is very much unofficially encouraged. Not doing so shuts down games, plain and simple.
There are good ways to do it and bad ways. Bad ways include granting all the monsters a Flanking Bonus when at least one of them should not get one if they are all moving up to Flank, for example. A pretty simple mistake, and probably not one that's going to matter at all. It's also worth noting that in a lot of the cases where it would, (they all have sneak attack), that's generally a pretty good reminder to the DM, or a valid question from the player that there was a mistake, so self correcting or grounds for a retcon, something that is simple enough.
As a DM, grouping badguys into smaller pools does not in any way mean that they do not still go in order. That is, if Kobold 1, 2, and 3 are up, grouped together, it's still Kobold 1, then Kobold 2, and then Kobold 3, not all three at the same exact time. It may appear that way at a glance, but it's not, which would be much clearer in a Face-to-Face game, or even any other type of Online Play where you can see everyone's movements and actions within a few seconds.
Grouping is also exclusive to exactly the same monsters. If, from the above example, Kobold 3 is a spellcaster, even if they have the same init, they are not grouped with 1 and 2 who are normal Bestiary Kobolds. That is, they roll a separate Init and they may just happen to go right after Kobolds 1 and 2, and no one is ever really going to know otherwise, but they did roll their own init as they are different.
It's purely based on the circumstances and number of players and enemies involved. If there are 2 enemies, there is no need to group them. It isn't going to significantly slow anything down or drain the fun. If there are 10 enemies though, it really bogs things down and it does drain the fun from everyone as they just wait there until they can act. It's ten times worse in a PbP, but still very true in any game.
Another circumstance that also plays into it is if there is a leader and a bunch of henchmen, it generally makes perfect sense for the henchmen to wait until their leader has acted, either because they know that the leader has something planned, might want to negotiate with a lightsaber to get the gang a better deal (not seeing those PC badges floating over the characters heads), or because maybe the leader has a bard or cavalier type ability to boost them. It's generally assumed that such a gang has worked together in the past and at least knows what each other is capable of. Why would they intentionally charge out of reach of that boost or get in their mounted bosses way?
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
[You start moving goblins around "starting" their turn. Now I can't come back in until their turn is over. (If you had readied, I could come in, but since you haven't declared that, their turn isn't over.)Why can't you?
This is exactly what Dorothy is talking about. It's not a problem of group initiative, it's a problem of the GM treating the separate individuals as a single individual all acting at once.
I have in the past grouped mooks together in fights. (As with TOZ, I tend not to nowadays as it's pretty easy in Roll20 to track it. Even in person I tend not to-- I haven't run much 7-11, so it's rare to have more than 3 or 4 total bad guys. But, in the past I've done it.) I have let players interrupt in the middle of the group doing their thing when a condition arises that makes them want to come out of delay. You can definitely do it. The GM may well change what the mooks who go after the delay do from what he said they were going to do; that's also reasonable.
It is not a problem with the GM moving the NPCs in a single initiative chunk. It is a problem with the GM giving each NPC half their turn, and then giving each one the other half.
That means there is no way to com in after NPC2 attacks, but before NPC 3 moves.
|
|
3 enemies are grouped together, or just happen to have Init in order.
E1 moves up then Readies "to attack once we have Flanking".
E2 moves up, triggering E1's Readied action.
E1 Attacks with Flanking.
E2 continues it's interrupted Action and attacks, with Flanking.
E3 moves up and Attacks, possibly with Flanking.
|
|
By the rules all should have individual initiatives but also by the rules scenarios should be run in 4 hours, nothing skipped accept the optional encounter. Which rule do you break? There can be little doubt that having individual initiatives for dozens of mooks extends the combat length excessively. Combat length is a major reason some people have turned away from Pathfinder.
I personally would prefer the mooks grouped to insure the game fits in the 4 hours slot. If grouping would give the mooks a significant advantage it they roll high then I'm perfectly OK with the GM taking a 10 on the initiative roll. Grouping by squads is OK too in my book.
On another note some other RPG's state in their rules that like creatures can be grouped into one initiative roll and hence why I believe you see it allot in PFS play.I personally think it's a rules mistake to not include this wording in pathfinder it hurts the game by making some combats too lengthy.
|
|
I don't know who you play with but the people I play with have to figure out which on the map is going and what that person is going to do now that the combat has changed. And multiple that by each extra NPC. There is a season 0 scenario with 24 bad guys attacking a caravan, I don't believe it for one moment that the combat in real time will take the same amount of time if you roll 24 initiatives and the GM has to make 24 different decisions based on a ever changing battle field.
I would add some GM's think ahead of time what there bad guys are going to do, and those GM's individual initiatives would have a much less of at a time impact then those that when it comes to their turn they make slow a careful decision each time they are up.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There can be little doubt that having individual initiatives for dozens of mooks extends the combat length excessively.I disagree with this assertion. You're dealing with the same number of actions regardless, or at least you should be. The only thing you're saving time on is the number of initiative rolls.
Not true. You are saving on keeping track of the individual initiative counts, as well. The more individual initiative counts you have to keep track of the more effort and time you will need to put into whatever method you use for tracking, and the more likely there is going to be confusion in dealing with them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every monster gets its own initiative. I can't believe it's even an issue. Why would they be grouped? There's nothing to even suggest grouping them.
If rolling more initiatives is an issue, pre-roll them.
Switching between them takes time. Every time i see a dm doing this combats take forever
|
|
Being that half of my gaming is via PbP, and speaking mainly from the PbP perspective, I do very often group similar enemies together, and should point out that this is very much unofficially encouraged. Not doing so shuts down games, plain and simple.
I write initiative by hand at local games, and haven't grouped enemies on the same initiative for a long time now. None of my games have been shut down. (Although my scratch paper does get messy as people change initiative counts during the combat.)
|
|
Being that half of my gaming is via PbP, and speaking mainly from the PbP perspective, I do very often group similar enemies together, and should point out that this is very much unofficially encouraged. Not doing so shuts down games, plain and simple.I write initiative by hand at local games, and haven't grouped enemies on the same initiative for a long time now. None of my games have been shut down. (Although my scratch paper does get messy as people change initiative counts during the combat.)
Play by Post is different, though. In order to keep people from going days without posting, and then losing interest and disappearing, it is common to post an initiative order, and then have all players who have actions before the next set of monsters to post their intentions, their rolls, and any contingent actions. This works better the less spread out the monsters are. Any advantage that accrues to the monsters for getting to take all their turns together is counteracted by the fact that players get a lot more rumination time, and can also coordinate their action better.
If you try to enforce only posting in order, then a single combat can easily take a month of real time.
But these are all quirks to asynchronous gameplay -- there are plenty of rules in the CRB that get altered for PbP to fit into a different medium. Anyone who cites RAW in opposition to the standard PbP conventions is probably better served by not playing PbP.
For F2F I do exactly what you do -- although I'm starting to experiment with the index card system.
|
|
If you try to enforce only posting in order, then a single combat can easily take a month of real time.
But these are all quirks to asynchronous gameplay -- there are plenty of rules in the CRB that get altered for PbP to fit into a different medium. Anyone who cites RAW in opposition to the standard PbP conventions is probably better served by not playing PbP.
Indeed, I don't do any PbP, so I can't really say what works and doesn't. My inclination is to do the same thing I do when I have a player F2F that isn't paying attention, skip them until they are ready to take their actions. I've only had to do this with a single player however, so it probably isn't widely appropriate.
|
Wow this thread exploded. Not to derail, but to clarify the random facts about my vampire anecdote.
** spoiler omitted **
They are just your regular vanilla Bestiary vamps that are level 8 sorcerers and thusly have 8d6 fireballs. They also have +8 to Initiative. With the initial grouped combat, they got something like a 27 on initiative and beat the entire party, as our kensai and others did roll below average. We were clumped because we had just opened the door when 13 fireballs simultaneously hit for a total of 104d6 points of damage.
.
I played that, never was evasion more loved in my career than at that point.
|
|
VTT games it really isn't an issue unless I find myself pressed for time. This almost never happens. However, F2F tables can be different at times. I've seen people use index cards, tracking on a notepad, and of course the Combat Pad. Sometimes I don't have a choice but to clump some initiatives together in order to save time.
Granted, there are some caveats to that. I wouldn't just lump all the baddies in the encounter together. So if they have different stat blocks, that always gets its own initiative. In the case of mobs having the ability for mass AOE damage, it's generally a detriment to the players to clump them together. (If it happens naturally via die rolls, so be it.)
Other times I might do that, when I have alot of the same group. Say goblins for instance. Generally they all have the same stats, and they usually come in numbers. In the event that they really brought the numbers, I would clump them together, but not in one big group. Goblins have a natural tendency to work in groups anyway, so it's not really that much of a stretch for them to do this. However, a cluster of oozes wouldn't necessarily have the sense to do this. I don't want to bog down the flow of combat either, so some discrepancy would be in order.
I think interleaving really boils down to the situation currently at hand. I don't think it's wrong to do. In fact, in some situations depending on how it's used, could actually enrich an encounter. Again, it's all in the GMs discretion on how to use it.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
To be clear about my postition:
99% of the time interleaving is identical to non interleaving.
However it does create bad habits, so when I do it I try to always call move-ready, move-ready to remind myself of the constraints of what I am doing and to forwarn the players what is coming so they can insert themselves if they are able.
Also, I try to restrict it to creatures that like to work together, especially anyone who has paired teamwork feats.
|
|
[You start moving goblins around "starting" their turn. Now I can't come back in until their turn is over. (If you had readied, I could come in, but since you haven't declared that, their turn isn't over.)Why can't you?
This is exactly what Dorothy is talking about. It's not a problem of group initiative, it's a problem of the GM treating the separate individuals as a single individual all acting at once.
I have in the past grouped mooks together in fights. (As with TOZ, I tend not to nowadays as it's pretty easy in Roll20 to track it. Even in person I tend not to-- I haven't run much 7-11, so it's rare to have more than 3 or 4 total bad guys. But, in the past I've done it.) I have let players interrupt in the middle of the group doing their thing when a condition arises that makes them want to come out of delay. You can definitely do it. The GM may well change what the mooks who go after the delay do from what he said they were going to do; that's also reasonable.
It is not a problem with the GM moving the NPCs in a single initiative chunk. It is a problem with the GM giving each NPC half their turn, and then giving each one the other half.
That means there is no way to com in after NPC2 attacks, but before NPC 3 moves.
Which is exactly the problem of treating all the bad guys as a single creature. You do not have a single creature that gets 4 move actions and 4 attacks: you have 4 creatures acting right after each other.
Either those 4 creatures went "move up, attack" each in turn, which means the player can jump in between any two creatures
OR the creatures went "move up, ready to attack when the last guy moves into place", which means the player can jump in between any two creatures.
I can't come up with any legal reason to lock a delaying player out of jumping back in the initiative order. Likewise, I can't come up with any legal reason to lock a delaying creature out of jumping back into the initiative order between a cavalier and his mount, a summoner and his summoned creature, etc.
The people sitting at the table do not have turns in combat: the minis on the map do.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
[You start moving goblins around "starting" their turn. Now I can't come back in until their turn is over. (If you had readied, I could come in, but since you haven't declared that, their turn isn't over.)Why can't you?
This is exactly what Dorothy is talking about. It's not a problem of group initiative, it's a problem of the GM treating the separate individuals as a single individual all acting at once.
I have in the past grouped mooks together in fights. (As with TOZ, I tend not to nowadays as it's pretty easy in Roll20 to track it. Even in person I tend not to-- I haven't run much 7-11, so it's rare to have more than 3 or 4 total bad guys. But, in the past I've done it.) I have let players interrupt in the middle of the group doing their thing when a condition arises that makes them want to come out of delay. You can definitely do it. The GM may well change what the mooks who go after the delay do from what he said they were going to do; that's also reasonable.
It is not a problem with the GM moving the NPCs in a single initiative chunk. It is a problem with the GM giving each NPC half their turn, and then giving each one the other half.
That means there is no way to com in after NPC2 attacks, but before NPC 3 moves.
Which is exactly the problem of treating all the bad guys as a single creature. You do not have a single creature that gets 4 move actions and 4 attacks: you have 4 creatures acting right after each other.
That is pretty much the problem with interleaving in a nutshell, it has a tendency to encourage lazy habits which lead to treating them as a single creature.
As you said, it is *not* legal. But some people (including myself) have encountered GMs who were reluctant to allow PCs to break up their initiative clumps and so locked them out until the cluster had all finished.
It is not to say interleaving should never be done, or that it will always cause problems. Just saying it is something where the GM should watch it, and only use it when they really need to, and even then be meticulous not to create illegal situations.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a bunch of bad guys act on a single initiative number is perfectly fine as long as they are still treated as individuals who happen to have the same initiative number.
That means that readied actions will still work as normal, and it lets players delay and jump back into the order between bad guys. They can even switch around which one of them goes first (mechanically, they are delaying to switch order).
To me, the problems happen when you treat all the bad guys as a single creature, and prevent delaying players from jumping in. Most commonly, I see party healers go on delay, so not letting that character jump in between the bad guys is going to get you some complaints.
I agree 100% with this.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I agree 100% with this.Having a bunch of bad guys act on a single initiative number is perfectly fine as long as they are still treated as individuals who happen to have the same initiative number.
That means that readied actions will still work as normal, and it lets players delay and jump back into the order between bad guys. They can even switch around which one of them goes first (mechanically, they are delaying to switch order).
To me, the problems happen when you treat all the bad guys as a single creature, and prevent delaying players from jumping in. Most commonly, I see party healers go on delay, so not letting that character jump in between the bad guys is going to get you some complaints.
As do I.
As I have been trying to say, it isn't interleaving the creatures (which can be done legally using readys, as has been pointed out) The problem is GMs who extend the interleaving into combining multiple opponents into a single turn with multiple moves and standards.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree 100% with this.Having a bunch of bad guys act on a single initiative number is perfectly fine as long as they are still treated as individuals who happen to have the same initiative number.
That means that readied actions will still work as normal, and it lets players delay and jump back into the order between bad guys. They can even switch around which one of them goes first (mechanically, they are delaying to switch order).
To me, the problems happen when you treat all the bad guys as a single creature, and prevent delaying players from jumping in. Most commonly, I see party healers go on delay, so not letting that character jump in between the bad guys is going to get you some complaints.
As do I.
As I have been trying to say, it isn't interleaving the creatures (which can be done legally using readys, as has been pointed out) The problem is GMs who extend the interleaving into combining multiple opponents into a single turn with multiple moves and standards.
I think a better solution to this, though, is to educate those GMs rather than demand GMs stop grouping initiatives, as the 'no interleaving' movement seems to be pushing for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there is such a thing as ridiculous pedantry and draconian adherence to the rules to such a length, that it no longer becomes fun.
If a GM combines 3 goblin initiatives together, they are not breaking the rules!
Well, yes they are, but most people agree that it is a pretty minor infraction with little or no effect. Please stop saying things that just aren't true.
The OP, though, had all six players call him on it, and express that they were uncomfortable with this short cut. (Granted, they did so in a preety poor manner, so there is an etiquette issue there as well.) Just like nosig's list, if you're doing something that others don't like (*and* that thing is technically against the rules), you should stop.
And to address your example: If a GM can't handle three goblins in initiative and still make the game fun, the solution is practice practice practice, not rules violations. (And again, I'm only talking about the situation where the players have *complained* about the violation. If everyone is fine with it, great.)
Thankfully, this has never happened, but if I have players who make a huge hubabaloo about something that I know ultimately won't matter in the grand scheme of things, then I'll roll my eyes and ask them if they really don't trust me that much. If they don't, I'll ask them to find another GM.
Seriously. This is usually such a small issue, that if folks get uppity about it, I dont want to game with them.
|
|
This is something that DMs have to use their best judgement with. The 13 sorcerers thing is a good example of a time when it'd be best to break initiative up a bit. Most of the time it's fine.
If your players are really upset you could always just roll a pile of dice and just have them all delay to the lowest result.
|
|
Being that half of my gaming is via PbP, and speaking mainly from the PbP perspective, I do very often group similar enemies together, and should point out that this is very much unofficially encouraged. Not doing so shuts down games, plain and simple.I write initiative by hand at local games, and haven't grouped enemies on the same initiative for a long time now. None of my games have been shut down. (Although my scratch paper does get messy as people change initiative counts during the combat.)
Yeah, but PbP games are shut down if the monsters and the players are massively interleaved.
I've been in only a couple of PbP games where the GM insisted that only the player who was up in initiative post an action. Combats take forever. This is the standard for in-person and VTT games, but it's just unworkable in PbP games.
What I do is get all of the monsters into as few groups as reasonable. Then, all the players can post at once. (Some people say that the players who go first post in one group, then the monsters go, then the players who go after the monsters post in a group. However, there's nothing stopping the players who go at the beginning of the next round from posting at the same time as the players posting at the end of this round.)
As a GM, I'll resolve player actions ideally in the order posted, but sometimes a bit differently if the players specify so or if it makes sense to do so. What this means is that effectively, all the players take undeclared Delay actions in order to reorder themselves to the order in which they post.
However, this kind of players posting whenever they can only works if there are a bunch of players who all go together without being interrupted by monsters. When the monsters act, the players have to wait for the GM to find out what the monsters do.
The more players who are "up" to post at a time, the more likely your PbP game is to avoid withering and dying because combats take a month and a half to resolve.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I had to reread the OP post, is this really how some GMs handle initiative ?
Using normal grouped initiative, the GM has the goblins run up, all on the same initiative, get flank, and attack with +2s (flank bonus). This involves each monster using a move action to close in, and a standard action to attack. Nobody is getting extra actions or breaking rules, but it apparently seems "unfair" because if the goblins had moved individually, the first to run up & attack would have had no flank bonus for the attack. Or so it appears to the player who has reasoned it out, but see the next bullet point.
Even when I don't roll initiative for every identical monster (and I should be be more sensitive after my Trial by Machine core table).
Alternatively, the "no interleaving" rule suggests that the GM must resolve every monster's turn separately, to avoid the aforementioned issues. However, in this case, the GM has the goblins delay and cluster anyway, then each goblin moves into position and readies on getting a flank, and then the attacks trigger, and each goblin gets the +2 flank bonus anyway.
This is pretty much how I have always done it (excluding monsters who are just too stupid for this tactic) of course I might be missing something.
|
Having a bunch of bad guys act on a single initiative number is perfectly fine as long as they are still treated as individuals who happen to have the same initiative number.
This, +1000!!!!!!
Oh, and Andy is practically as far from an ocean as you can get, AND lives on the East side of The River. ;)
|
|
This is something that DMs have to use their best judgement with. The 13 sorcerers thing is a good example of a time when it'd be best to break initiative up a bit. Most of the time it's fine.
If your players are really upset you could always just roll a pile of dice and just have them all delay to the lowest result.
Wow, something else I can agree with. In this case, the players are getting a huge tactical advantage, but at least it allows you to move forward!
I guess, to me, the only valid complaint is that some critters might move earlier than they would normally. With a fair GM this should not be a real issue, though.
On this whole issue... I have done it both ways. I have had so many critters (in a 5-9) that I used pretty much every tab on my tracking board. I have also clumped. The only time it seemed to save me was rolling the dice, and organizing the board. Once the board is ready it hasn't really mattered that much, in my eyes.
I will agree that PbP can be a little different, so clumping can be a little more important.
But, ALWAYS treat each critter individually, and state your actions.
On that last point. It is usually a good idea to do anyways. Both as a player and a GM. Either face-to-face, or online. This promotes good communications, and helps prevent avoidable mistakes...
Example, with my warpriest, Gunari.
I use fervor to cast divine favor , then move up , and then attack, using Greater Weapon of the Chosen .
I find this helps me play, and helps teach new players about how many things they can do in a turn (typically two verbs).
|
|
Again, there was ONE person with a problem, and he was so vocal about it that he threw off the game for me and all the other players.
Sorry, I misrembered that... It does change things, obviously. If you have one or a few players in your region who have an issue, then tell them to GM themselves or find a different GM. "Don't be a jerk" trumps all. At the same time, I recommend being cognizent of this issue, and only using it where actually needed. Rolling everyone, and then grouping them as they fall in the order, or rolling everyone and delaying until the lowest, is the bette way most of the time.
|
|
Again, there was ONE person with a problem, and he was so vocal about it that he threw off the game for me and all the other players.Sorry, I misrembered that... It does change things, obviously. If you have one or a few players in your region who have an issue, then tell them to GM themselves or find a different GM. "Don't be a jerk" trumps all. At the same time, I recommend being cognizent of this issue, and only using it where actually needed. Rolling everyone, and then grouping them as they fall in the order, or rolling everyone and delaying until the lowest, is the bette way most of the time.
Its the better way for you.
I've yet to have anyone complain about how I do initiative, but I make sure to be fair.
Indeed, I often ask someone at the table to run initiative for me, and the common question becomes, "how many initiatives am I tracking?" Nobody complains when the 4 mooks have the sane initiative roll.
So for me, the better way is combining like initiatives in a fair way, and allowing anyone to break up the group through various initiative actions like ready and delay.
Isn't this thread the same issue: with out the "interleaving" title?
Not quite.
The issue the previous thread was about:GM: "I'll roll a d20 for all the vampires' initiatives. Natural 20. The vampire all go before you and hit you all with fireballs and you're dead."
Player: "Not fair! They should have all rolled initiative separately and if they wanted to act together they should have delayed until the lowest roll!"
GM: "That would be slow and fiddly. Although I guess in this case you have a point."
The issue this thread is about:
GM: "I move this rogue, then I move this rogue, then both rogues attack, so they both get flanking and sneak damage."
Player: "Not fair! I can't do that! I have to take my entire turn in one go!"
GM: "You could if you readied an action."
There is some overlap between the issues, so the subjects have got interleaved.
|
|
Isn't this thread the same issue: with out the "interleaving" title?
Not quite.
The issue the previous thread was about:
GM: "I'll roll a d20 for all the vampires' initiatives. Natural 20. The vampire all go before you and hit you all with fireballs and you're dead."
Player: "Not fair! They should have all rolled initiative separately and if they wanted to act together they should have delayed until the lowest roll!"
GM: "That would be slow and fiddly. Although I guess in this case you have a point."The issue this thread is about:
GM: "I move this rogue, then I move this rogue, then both rogues attack, so they both get flanking and sneak damage."
Player: "Not fair! I can't do that! I have to take my entire turn in one go!"
GM: "You could if you readied an action."There is some overlap between the issues, so the subjects have got interleaved.
Thanks Matt.
|
|
Isn't this thread the same issue: with out the "interleaving" title?
Go to[http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r33h&page=1?Rolling-Creatures-into-the-same-initiative].
It is. And it has links to previous threads.
The only additions in this thread are the term "interleaving" (which I've never heard in a game context) and the separation between "acting on group initiative" vs. "acting a single unit/creature".
It seems to basically come down to
- make sure your bad guys take the correct number of actions (e.g., no moving and full attacking without pounce or something)
- roll more than one die for your grouped bad guys and take the lowest initiative
- let delaying players jump back into the initiative order between bad guys (even if they are readied)
-consider splitting the bad guys into multiple groups (I usually aim for 2-3 in each group, 4 at the max).
Tactically, you're actually better off splitting the bad guys into at least 2 groups. That way, they can react to what the players do and not be sitting there with invalidated actions. For example:
- If they all swarm (and kill) the first guy that comes up, they might discover that the second guy was actually the biggest damage dealer, and they just swarmed the rogue who couldn't really hurt them anyway.
- If they all swarm the first guy and wait until everyone's in place to attack, if the first guy drops after only half the bad guys attack, the rest of your bad guys are wasting their attacks on a non-threatening target.
- If they all move to flank a single character, they'll be really annoyed when the first attack goes off and the swashbuckler steps out of flank as an immediate action. (If they hadn't all moved together, some of them would have the chance to move into flanking again, and the swashbuckler doesn't have another immediate action.)
- When a player jumps back into the initiative order and reveals himself as a combat healer, they won't be able to change targets and take him out before next round.
Etc.
So if you're actually clumping bad guys together to have a tactical advantage against the players, you end up hurting yourself more often than helping yourself.
If you're clumping them together to make it easier to run combats and speed up play, more power to you!
