Hello everyone,
I'm quite new as DM and I'm having some confusions regarding focus on encounters in my party.
Usually is the enemy is non intelligent I just target the closest one or the one that did the most damage.
Problem comes with creature that are intelligent and could have additional information.
I have several questions:
1- Usually PCs make assumptions on enemies. If they see a guy with Heavy Armor and not casting spell, they guess that enemy could have low will saves, or the same for guys like Mages.
Is is fair for the enemy to make these assumptions? If they have a big dude in front of them wearing heavy armor, would it make more sense to cast a Hold Person or some Fort save related spell?
2- When can the enemy ignore the front line? In Pathfinder there's no such thing as aggro, therefore intelligent enemy could target back line right away. If I'm a raging orc, I do have SOME intelligence, would it be right to go for the squishy guy?
3- Why should the intelligent enemy target a guy who's wearing heavy armor and shield when there could be others casting spells, healing or doing ranged damage? The worst that can happen is enemy takes AoO or 2 rounds to get into position.
Party composition is:
1- Human Warrior with Breastplate and Longsword-Shield
2- Dwarf Cleric with Warhammer and Shield-Medium Armor
3- Ratfolk Witch with nothing on, and only carrying a Light Crossbow
4- Medium Race Ninja with Light Armor and double daggers.
So, let's say the party encounters 4 orcs, what should the orcs do?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intelligent enemies should make similar decisions to the PCs. If there's an enemy who seems dangerous but easy to hit, you should probably target them.
There might be other considerations - some foes may think, "I am going to challenge the strongest enemy, to demonstrate my invincible power!"
If you're unsure, rolling a dice openly is usually acceptable. "On a 1 or 2, he attacks the cleric. On a 3 or 4, he moves to attack the fighter. On a 5 or 6, he provokes an AoO from the cleric and runs past him to attack the witch."
I've seen a great many groups play it the way the OP describes. It's perfectly fine, provided they are basing their decisions on in-game observations (and yes, a spellcaster knowing that his spells tend to be more effective against certain targets is perfectly acceptable).
Party of 4 orc warriors?
Attack by charging out of ambush position.
Target the elf, if any. (Doesn't look like you have any.)
Target the dwarf, they are always trouble. Intelligent orcs may notice the holy symbol in which case they really want the dwarf dead.
Light crossbow? Couple of daggers? Doesn't look that dangerous. Maybe send one orc to take care of both the squishy ones with hardly any armor.
So, one orc is sent to run around the outside flank to get to the squishy ones. Short straw got it.
Two orcs on the dwarf.
Last orc on the guy that looks like he can fight -- sword and board.
Put an orc shaman or leader type in charge, you will get different results. At that point they may be trying to spot spell component pouches, holy symbols, etc. Unleash some thrown hand axes to soften up the party (probably take out one squishy) before charging in. Get strength on thrown weapons, which is why they would make a good opening move.
This is assuming the orcs in general suffer from testosterone poisoning. Might makes right so you want to show how dangerous you are in melee combat.
It seems like I'm going to be playing smarts NPC, and the ambush idea from BretI is awesome!
I like it very much, using the race hate to justify NPCs actions.
Mostly I'm having troubles when I gotta decide who to attack. I know that the witch has only 12 hp! Basically a crit could down her, so I might sometimes don't target her just because.
I'm going to keep these advice in mind, they're really helpful.
|
This is actually one of the reasons playing tabletop is so nice: you can actually make choices here, instead of carrying out a programmed script. Players and monsters both get to try to trick each other, too.
In the beginning of course, monsters and players alike will tend to go off on stereotypes. That heavily armored dude at the front? Probably a fighter with good AC. That funny-smelling thin dude in robes? Probably a wizard with so-so AC but devastating spellcasting potential.
Likewise, players will tend to think "big monster = probably dumb and slow, poor Reflex".
But then you get to do more. A wizard's player might dress him up in fake armor, or a monk might dress in wizard robes to try to trick enemies.
Also, if the players know something about their enemies, they might try taunting; ranging from Yo Mama taunts to actually knowing just what to say to get the enemy to focus on their PC, instead of the squishy wizard.
This is where roleplay creeps into combat. Neat, huh?
---
It's hard to give a general rule on who to target. I can only give a few points to consider every time:
1) Always think about what the PCs look like. Ask the players to describe them when in doubt.
2) Think about just how smart the monster is. A moderate-intellect monster does different things than a brilliant one. (This one sometimes trips up GMs, who play every monster as a brilliant tactician. Players resent this as GM metagaming. In addition, it's harder to convey that THIS monster actually really is more brilliant than the others before it...)
3) Think about what the monster is trying to accomplish. Is it's goal to defend a lair, to scare off intruders? Or is it actually hunting the PCs? Does it carry a grudge? Does it hate particular races? Is it just trying to get away alive?
4) Clue the players in to the reasons for your decisions. "Well, the dragon looks you over and his eyes focus on the tasty-looking halfling." "After that missile barrage, the orcs look like they're going to go after your Zen Archer." This stuff is interesting and entertaining for the players!
So far the major problem I'm having is the following:
Fighter is using sword and shield, two weapon fighting.
If using only sword, he's at +8 and doing 1d8+5 damage or 2 attacks at +6 1d8+5 and 1d4+4.
He's the only one hitting the enemy most of the time! Therefore the enemy usually just focus him because of this. I mean, the others might try, but fail. And the fighter has 23 AC.
The party face 2 Skeletal Champions (which are CR2) and they won without receiving almost any damage.
Why? Because the Skeletons were focusing the warrior, which was the only one doing damage. I know warrior is right now kinda OP until level 3 comes and cleric/witch gets access to more spell, but usually the enemy has not many reasons not to focus other PCs than the warrior.
Ah, the old 'Fighters with swords and shields are overpowered' problem.
With something like a Skeletal Champion, you're free to play them as crazed life-hating undeads with no survival instinct who attack whoever seems easiest to murder.
If you can, don't let any one PC get too high AC. It makes fights silly. What intelligent enemy is going to keep fighting if they can't land a hit? Then you get a situation where everyone is running all the time.
Beyond that, I wouldn't worry too much, as long as the players are having fun.
Yes, but there's a difference between 'enemies can only hit on a 15' and 'enemies can only hit on a 20 because the PC put all his feats and money into improving AC'.
Intelligent enemies should be played intelligently. If nothing else use the same sort of tactics players do.
1) Any obvious spellcasters tend to be primary targets
2) Characters with high AC tend to be ignored, especially if 1 or 2 rounds of attacks don't work
3) Targetting a character with a spell that you think they are weak against is fair. *PS, don't ever tell them what class a character is, but if they can guess based on the description of the character then it is reasonable for them to understand that "fighters are hardy, and wizards are strong willed".
4) Of course there are always other considerations. Some characters might really have a hate for certain races, or possibly even types of characters. An example, a character could have a hate for roguish types because he had something important stolen from him recently.
Most importantly, they shouldn't just stand around and slug it out. Depending on builds it is reasonable for characters to know that they hit harder in a single hit than the enemy, and that the enemy can cause more damage with multiple hits than they can. To that end they should stay on the move, using vital strike (or other single strike enhancing abilities) then moving away from the enemy. No matter what, the character is going to take less damage even if they are hit by the AoO then if they had stood still and let the enemy get a full-attack.
To the OP, sounds like you’re doing fine. Just keep in mind, some creatures will have preferred enemies listed in their description or stat block. Make sure you go through them thoroughly when you're going to throw them into the mix.
Do note that a guy in adventurers garb with only a dagger and crossbow is not automatically spotted as a spellcaster. That actually takes him casting or some pretty darn good Ks rolls on the part of the foes.
The guy with armor and a big nasty sword will appear to be more dangerous, at least to start. He's also in front, and running past him, leaving him in your rear, may be a bad idea.
Remember- there is nominally only one team of "adventurers" in all Golarion. Few know what a party of PC's is or how dangerous they are. To your average orc, it's just four guys, and the spellcaster looks the least dangerous.
|
I'm also fond of knowing the narrative before you roll initiative.
If there's an equal number of combatants, or if the ambushers are outnumbered, they may not be beginning combat by attacking first.
Thugs and thieves aren't usually interested in having members of their bandit group murdered for little gain. One less thug means less power to ambush the next group of travelers coming down the road.
If they spot a group with a heavily armed warrior (or more), I would usually have one of them meet them on the road, and call attention to how the group is surrounded. They may start off by calling out to whoever is not in armor, believing that to be the person who hired the armored warrior type to protect them.
They might call out for that person to surrender their gold or magical wealth to pass unmolested.
If combat breaks out, they may focus their attacks on the guy without any armor. There's many reasons for this.
1. If he/she is the merchant leader, by subjecting him/her to the greatest danger quickly, they hope to force a quick surrender whereupon they get paid.
2. Any seasoned warrior knows that swinging away at a veteran in heavy armor is going to take a while. I'd almost have a single attacker move up to him and fight defensively or take total defense actions as he's just stalling while his bandit allies force the quick surrender by subjecting the merchant to imminent harm.
Most times, anything with any brains, even orcs, would attack the weakest looking target first. They won't know it's an oracle with sidestep secret who may in fact have the highest armor class.
If someone appears to be a spellcaster, along with the typical signs of such - alchemical vials, spell component pouches, familiars, holy symbols - you can bet in a magical world they are a priority. And not just a priority to kill with a greataxe. An orc would certainly simply grab the spellcaster and grapple him and try to prevent him from swinging his arms about and casting - even if said orc lacks Improved Grapple, he'd risk a melee attack from the wizard/cleric/oracle. Once in a grapple, it's a pain to cast without somatic or material components. :)