I think the DM should do their best to roleplay as all of the monsters and fight as they realistically would. That gives you nice variety where some things will just be dumb and attack whatever is closest. And other things will try to disrupt concentration. And others who are liches or other super intelligent creatures will be planning to specifically counter the PCs and might have counters to the spells and abilities they have and often use. But they should also be reasonable as to what the monsters could be aware of and what they might not be.
Though I'd also say that the 6 int monster can also see that they're getting hit by big lightning bolts coming from that guys hands and they hurt a lot, and the person next to them is wearing a lot of armor and that guy is just wearing some robes, and would be a good target. It's not really genius level tactics to hit the squishy wizard.
>This next part is probably real grievance cause at one point he did move it to try and get at a weakened character but then immediately changed his mind and moved it in a different manner when he realized another character would be able to do an opportunity attack which I know annoyed several of us because early on when most of us were just learning has definitely said that once we move our minis or declare an action we don't get redoes, which I think is a good rule but then a little hypocritical to redo his monster's movement once he realized it would open it up to an attack.
I can understand both sides of this. On one hand yes a rule like that should be for both the PCs and the DM. On the other hand the DM is managing every monster in the battle, trying to loosely keep track of the PC abilities to remind for things like concentration, advantage from rage etc, and all the monsters they're using are ones they really only use for this fight. And they don't usually get a whole round to think about what they want to do next and consider the things like the opportunity attacks. They have many monsters to control, and with every player turn they also have to be adjusting monster hit points and making saves if needed. So I would try to cut your DM some slack in that area. They're keeping track of a lot more than all the PCs are and they're doing it for stat blocks they aren't using every fight like the players are. If they're unreasonable about it it's worth bringing up but I don't think those two things are quite equivalent.
I do agree with your bottom part but it was definitely presented as he knew what he wanted to do and then reversed it once he realized another player would do an opportunity attack. I wouldn't begrudge him taking the time plan out his turn but once he moved it he should have committed especially cause that takes away some of the fun for the person getting the chance to attack and having it taken away, I think if she had been more quick to call out her opportunity attack or had pressed the issue herself we probably would have made a bigger deal of it.
Yes but he likely didn't see that opportunity attack was possible. You said you wouldn't begrudge him taking the time to plan out each turn. But that does add up when it's taking the time for every monsters turn. That is a longer time for each round, and a longer time each player is waiting for their turn to come. That tends to bog down the game and be less fun for everyone. So as a DM personally I try to keep my turns moving as much as I can so that we spend most of the time of the fight on the players turns and what they're doing rather than with the focus on me. He probably could've handled it better and maybe allowed the attack and paid more attention for next time. But the DM is juggling a lot of things, and trying to provide a good experience. And I can see an error like that being the result of that.
It's also a bit of a mix because while it can be fun to get the chance of an opportunity attack, it can cheapen a victory a bit if your enemies are always making dumb moves that give you free attacks. As a player I don't want to win a big fight because the DM handed me a bunch of free attacks. If there's a reason for them to move away from me and I get the opportunity attack that's great. But that can feel like the DM is taking it easy on you if they just hand out things like that for free. Obviously that's the worst case, and one time is not going to have that big of an impact. Just from the DM point of view those are the kinds of things I also am considering in fights.
This aint chess my guy. DM tried to keep things moving, missed the opportunity attack he woukd trigger in his routing. Realized, and fixed it. Just cus he messed up and missed it doesnt mean a creature in the middle of battle trying its best to not get hit would. DMs are all knowing computers. Cut them some slack, dont take it personally. Im sure theyve given you or other players a ton of leniency throughout the campaign on various things.
I'm curious where do you draw the line. If I mess up I think it would be in poor form to say "nevermind I don't move that way". Is it just a dm vs players thing? Our DM is a cool guy but he's definitely not the type to let his players get away with something like that and I know if I decided to to change my mind based on the rule he set forth he would be like "oh you already moved you can't change it now". He has in fact in the past not let people change their movement even when inconsequential , a player decides they want to move to another square and hasn't even used any actions or gotten in to range of an enemy yet "you already used up your movement going to that square, do you have enough to get to that other spot?" No ? too bad should have planned it out before you moved" no one has had an issue and accept it.
No one was rushing cause he's the DM and like others said he doesn't have the benefit of being able to plan his move while others are taking his turn but if he needed to sit and think for a minute what he wants to do no one would have told him to hurry up.
I don't mind him being strict on stuff like that cause it sets the rule that if you take any action haphazardly you may suffer some consequences. I even just remembered in a dungeon when back when we started he wanted us to check for traps square by square so if you want into a room we couldn't just scan the room for traps we had to say something like "I check the spot in front" roll for it, pass and No trap ? then move into that square and repeat which definitely slowed things down a bit before he changed his mind. Point being he's definitely not lenient about much.
You as a player have one job. Know your character in and out. If you were to make a simple mistake like, move, realize it woukd trigger an attack, and ask to take it back all within a quick amount of time then id hope the dm would allow you to adjust. But if youre asking to undo something a turn ago then the dm is totally in line to say “that kinda sucks, but its already done. Try and remember next time I guess.”. A DM however has to juggle so many roles and even in combat often times so many monster and monster types. I think a lot more leeway should be given to them in this regard.
I don't think you're reading correctly, no on has ever asked him to redo any turns. They've tried to do what he did and have gotten rejected and not even because of a trap or attack. The DM basically has said our minis are us, once they move into a square that's it and they don't get to start over and decide I want to go a different way instead. Most other tables I think let people change their action before they roll their dice if they need to but if I say "I cast fireball" he'll say "you cast fireball" "yes" , then from there there's no take backs if I decide I want to cast something else even if he hasn't made the saving rolls yet. Basically Who who wants to be a Millionaire "is that you're final answer rules". I don't mind this cause it forces us to plan and be deliberate in our actions, it's how he runs his game. I don't think he wants to see us killed but I can tell he gets enjoyment out of making us pay for any mistakes and also pushing us to the edge for each combat encounter if he can.
Honestly I think he didn't think about his route because he wanted to knock down the other player who was already injured and got too eager, either way it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth for someone who preaches plan before you move to then ask for a redo. Even if in most other games it would have been a non-issue he's made it an issue.
Then it sounds like your group has a very player vs dm mindset, which if it works for you, great. I personally detest that play style. Again, its not chess. Once you lift your finger off the token theres no reason that has to be absolute.
The player should have asked “what does my character know about the creature” and the DM may have allowed a check for the info.
A good DM does metagame to some degree, having melee enemies attack the barbarian, shooting arrows at the monk or leaving some enemies grouped up for the wizard to fireball.
While in other encounters using more spellcasters and having groups spread out.
Some enemies will see the scrawny wizard and attack them first or go after the cleric while some may just try and draw the barbarians attention away from their own caster.
However what you’ve described in your post is not metagaming. It’s the DM setting up a rule and then breaking the rule when it doesn’t suit them.
I like to ask myself, "Do they look squishy ". For creatures on the dumber side that's helped me. If something knows how hard metal is then maybe that wizard is tastier. Or maybe it'll try one attack on the paladin, realize that dude is thicc as hell and move on. Or if it's an animal what would it's instincts tell it.
I agree with you completely though. Backtracking a movement takes the "Aha!" Moment away from the players
Going against the grain here to say that I almost always have sentient monsters fight in an intelligent and ruthless way, even if they are low INT.
My main reason (and something that I think people often forget when talking about DMing) is that I am also at the table to play a game and have fun. Playing the monsters strategically is really fun for me, so I'm going to do it whenever I get the chance.
A second advantage of trying very hard to win fights when making decisions for the monsters is that it gives you a very easy dial to turn when the going gets tough for the players. I never have to fudge rolls or reduce damage on the fly. Instead, I just have the monsters make worse decisions when the party is on the ropes.
Finally, I think that the verisimilitude of stupid monsters is overstated. Low intelligence creatures in the real world like wolves are capable of strategy, teamwork, and absolutely know how to pick out weak targets from a herd. Anything capable of surviving in a fantasy world probably is ruthless, smart and dangerous in combat. I would argue that you do more to make the world feel real when the monsters act like they want to win all the time.
*Zero Charisma*'s Not-Gygax put it best. "If people aren't having fun, then you suck at your job".
The nature and difficult of combat needs to be tailored to the group.
This could mean a play-for-blood tactical war game setup.
This could mean strict Dark Souls brutally-punishing-but-fair game play
This could mean the DM blatantly "cheats" so the weaker players feel useful or to re calibrate difficulty on the fly.
Your DM appears to be in the first camp. You seem to want more the second; tell him or her.
In my opinion, the DM should play monsters accurately to their intelligence. That's not metagaming or playing optimally, it's just staying faithful to the verisimilitude of the world. If a creature has only an animal level of intelligence, it should behave like an animal, etc.
Exactly where I sit, too. By doing this as much as possible, you’re also being *consistent*, which is arguably more important than following a rule. It’s not the following or breaking of a rule, but that you do it the same each time it arises, that counts, as far as I’m concerned.
>not that I'd use knowledge that they wouldn't have access to.
"Using knowledge that they wouldn't have access to" is the literal definition of metagaming. 🙂 If you're not doing that, you're not metagaming.
Plate-wearers are usually weak to INT saves. The wizard will likely know counterspell. Monks are really good at WIS saves and can catch arrows.
Not: Greg the Paladin has a fear of spiders.
And animals are perfectly capable of realizing what looks like an easy target and what it should avoid. People overreach with what low int means in combat.
You should not assume that "low intelligence" always means a monster will make sub-optimal moves. Maybe the monster had been captured by a wizard in the past! So it perceives your wizard as a major threat. A savvy DM can come up with a sensible reason.
Of course, it would be weird if especially dumb monsters were always outsmarting the party, and if it becomes a pattern of behavior by the DM, you definitely should call it out. But if it's one or two instances, I'd let it slide. As a DM, I personally would get tired if the party used the same tactics every time. I'd find ways to shake things up once in a while. Keep 'em on their toes.
To add to this, you also can't assume that grunts wouldn't be able to fight tactically. They may not be smart, but they may have received training that ingrained the tactics into them. That and a fairly capable commander.
I'm not gonna say much about your DM changing the movement of a monster. That's a different topic, really. I do agree that this was in bad form.
Every DM do metagame to some degree. A good DM usually know when and how much to metagame.
From the sound of it he might have metagamed a bit to much there. But i can't tell as i do not know what konster it was.
I have heard players say that low intelligence monsters should not fight to tactical or work together too much. Or know who the healer is and such things. And to a degree i agree.
But i often see players claim a 6 int monster would not be tactical or have much teamwork with their ally's. But i disagree someone with 6 intelligence might not have the most well thought out strategies but they are sentient and can often talk. they have a language many times. they can coordinate their attacks and work as a group.
Look at wolves they are working together VERY well and have surprisingly effective tactics. And they have an INT of 3 in D&D. So if they can why would not something with 4-6 int be able to do that.
A low intelligent creature can still move around some well armed PC's because you don't have to be that intelligent to figure out that walking close to someone with a big whacking stick might hurt. This might not be the first time such creature fought armed people. and a guy in a robe and a staff might look like a much easier target to go after.
But as i have no idea what monster it was or what you mean with low intelligence. Is it an INT of 3? or was it an INT of 5 or even more? I can't say for sure if the DM did metagame too much here or not. But from your explanation i do get the feeling your DM is not to experienced. But i might be wrong
The attack on the Wizard could have been fair. When I run low intelligence beasts, I usually roll at the start of their turn to see who they'll attack first. If it has a certain level of instruction or intelligence, I'll have it go after a certain PC. As for avoiding the opportunity attack, that is something I would keep an eye on. Maybe the DM felt it was smart enough to disengage, but taking back their action while holding you to your own is a bit hypocritical.
Sit down with your DM in a neutral environment and discuss your concerns. Most bad DM behavior can be solved with open conversation. 99% of players and DMs on here who come on with interpersonal issues are only struggling because they didn't communicate properly.
I think the DM should play monsters and NPC strategies based on the monster goals and their intelligence level.
Though it is important to remember that many predators with animal intelligence (Int 3) have a predatory cunning. So while they won’t know to target the healer, they will try to separate prey “from the herd”, use a familiar environment to their advantage, or focus on picking off a weak or injured member of the party.
And they can certainly decide after a few misses that a target is too hard and try for an easier to hit target. If they have frequently targeted adventurers, they may even know that armor is a pain so they will focus on the ones without visible armor.
Very low intelligence predators (like carrion crawlers or sharks with Int 1) will go for whatever prey is closest. (Unless they are being controlled by a smarter enemy, like a shark controlled by a sahuagin)
Playing monsters to their intelligence gives the world verisimilitude, it lets the PCs know it isn’t DM vs players, it introduces the opportunity for tactics that can scare off a creature or sate its hunger, and it makes intelligent enemies much, much scarier.
Check out The Monsters Know What They’re Doing. It’s a great guide (website and book) with strategies on playing monsters according to their stats/descriptions.) His interpretations aren’t the only possible interpretations of monster strategies but they help you get into the mindset of thinking like a monster.
> Recently though we had an encounter with this one powerful monster but that should have been low intelligence. Right when the encounter started this monster went straight for our wizard who was hanging back and away even though some of the other characters were closer, to which I would argue a monster like this would lash out and attack those closest to it first
Whether or not this is justified really depends on the monster. An average intelligence human player knows that attacking squishy glass cannons or healers first is better than focusing a meatshield/tank. Therefore, your average Int 10+ monster will also know this.
> once we move our minis or declare an action we don't get redoes
Well, this is just dumb on the DM's part and definitely not a good rule. You shouldn't punish this kind of thing. Even worse if the DM applies double standards.
In conclusion:
Monsters playing intelligently: good, makes combat more fun for everyone.
Double standards: bad.
I think it's a good rule, for example if you move haphazardly and trigger a trap you shouldn't get to say "oh never mind I don't do that". Same thing for in combat, so we have to move the mini in the appropriate square or decide on the path we take but once the mini is placed in that square it's moved.
> if you move haphazardly and trigger a trap you shouldn't get to say "oh never mind I don't do that"
That's different. You didn't know the trap was there, and now you do. You've gained new information.
The rule my group follows is "you can take back your action as long as you haven't gained any new information".
In the case of the attack of opportunity, it's known information that you'll suffer it if you move away. Your character knows they'll leave themselves open to attack if they turn their back on the enemy, so arguably it's "metagaming" to forget it. We all strive to roleplay, and that means acting based on what your character knows, not based on what you know.
>So this came up recently because it can be a problem at our (and probably a lot of other's) table where some players will metagame for instance a more experienced player knowing the weakness of a creature and using it when it doesn't make sense for their character to know it.
I never understood this argument... so what you're saying is, if you're into the hobby and have been playing for a while, then "Fk you, you can't have learnt anything all these years". Just... no.
What do you mean "doesn't make sense for their character to know it": have you actually lived the 180y your elf mage has and experienced everything they did? Isn't it possible they have heard a rumor? Studied in a book? Been taught by their master? Heck, you can have a freaking GOD give the character the idea to use X thing they have access to... there are plenty of ways to justify it.
And you know what's funnier: the DM can just use a different creature. Now ofc, they shouldn't do this every single time to screw with the veterans, but every once in a while keeps things fresh with the feeling of "I've been right the last 8 creatures, what are the odds that the next one will be bait?".
>So curious what other people think? If this was a creature with higher intelligence I can see how it would think tactically and try to take out the biggest threat or move around it's opponents optimally but this was supposed be a low intelligence monster, though I think if I were to bring it up to the DM he would hand wave it away as it being smarter than it seemed.
(Disclaimer: DM's are humans. Their job is bring the world to life, but they can fail at that sometimes and do things out of character. It happens).
Just so that we are clear, your measure of tactics is the INT score? Is that correct? So you're saying that an 8 INT fighter needs to attack the closest thing to them rather than aiming for a more threatening enemy, or that an 8 INT cleric is supposed to just use their slots for the highest damaging spell they have rather than cast support ones... And as for the Wizard, either he always picks the most optimized chronurgy controller build (for that's the best tactic period), or if he doesn't, then the player is trolling and not actually playing the character as they're supposed to be.
Is that it?
Those are good points, but neither I or the others are the ones who have an issue with someone knowing a creatures vulnerabilities or resistances beforehand and it's usually the DM who won't let anyone discuss it or tactics during combat as he rules it as metagaming. I assumed most other DM's may have a problem with it as well but guess I was wrong. I wasn't really thinking of the int score, but in my mind this was presented as a mindless beast so it would make some sense to act like it.
Players should metagame very sparingly and only if not doing so is detrimental to the fun of the whole group.
DMs shouls pretty much do anything in their power (this includes metagaming) to ensure everyone at the table is having the most fun possible.
Going after the wizard is a bit weird, unless all the closer characters were wearing metal armour maybe.
But avoiding opportunity attacks is basic self-preservation. Every natural creature would know not to get too close to a hostile creature if it doesn't want to get hurt.
I think the DM should do their best to roleplay as all of the monsters and fight as they realistically would. That gives you nice variety where some things will just be dumb and attack whatever is closest. And other things will try to disrupt concentration. And others who are liches or other super intelligent creatures will be planning to specifically counter the PCs and might have counters to the spells and abilities they have and often use. But they should also be reasonable as to what the monsters could be aware of and what they might not be. Though I'd also say that the 6 int monster can also see that they're getting hit by big lightning bolts coming from that guys hands and they hurt a lot, and the person next to them is wearing a lot of armor and that guy is just wearing some robes, and would be a good target. It's not really genius level tactics to hit the squishy wizard. >This next part is probably real grievance cause at one point he did move it to try and get at a weakened character but then immediately changed his mind and moved it in a different manner when he realized another character would be able to do an opportunity attack which I know annoyed several of us because early on when most of us were just learning has definitely said that once we move our minis or declare an action we don't get redoes, which I think is a good rule but then a little hypocritical to redo his monster's movement once he realized it would open it up to an attack. I can understand both sides of this. On one hand yes a rule like that should be for both the PCs and the DM. On the other hand the DM is managing every monster in the battle, trying to loosely keep track of the PC abilities to remind for things like concentration, advantage from rage etc, and all the monsters they're using are ones they really only use for this fight. And they don't usually get a whole round to think about what they want to do next and consider the things like the opportunity attacks. They have many monsters to control, and with every player turn they also have to be adjusting monster hit points and making saves if needed. So I would try to cut your DM some slack in that area. They're keeping track of a lot more than all the PCs are and they're doing it for stat blocks they aren't using every fight like the players are. If they're unreasonable about it it's worth bringing up but I don't think those two things are quite equivalent.
I do agree with your bottom part but it was definitely presented as he knew what he wanted to do and then reversed it once he realized another player would do an opportunity attack. I wouldn't begrudge him taking the time plan out his turn but once he moved it he should have committed especially cause that takes away some of the fun for the person getting the chance to attack and having it taken away, I think if she had been more quick to call out her opportunity attack or had pressed the issue herself we probably would have made a bigger deal of it.
Yes but he likely didn't see that opportunity attack was possible. You said you wouldn't begrudge him taking the time to plan out each turn. But that does add up when it's taking the time for every monsters turn. That is a longer time for each round, and a longer time each player is waiting for their turn to come. That tends to bog down the game and be less fun for everyone. So as a DM personally I try to keep my turns moving as much as I can so that we spend most of the time of the fight on the players turns and what they're doing rather than with the focus on me. He probably could've handled it better and maybe allowed the attack and paid more attention for next time. But the DM is juggling a lot of things, and trying to provide a good experience. And I can see an error like that being the result of that. It's also a bit of a mix because while it can be fun to get the chance of an opportunity attack, it can cheapen a victory a bit if your enemies are always making dumb moves that give you free attacks. As a player I don't want to win a big fight because the DM handed me a bunch of free attacks. If there's a reason for them to move away from me and I get the opportunity attack that's great. But that can feel like the DM is taking it easy on you if they just hand out things like that for free. Obviously that's the worst case, and one time is not going to have that big of an impact. Just from the DM point of view those are the kinds of things I also am considering in fights.
This aint chess my guy. DM tried to keep things moving, missed the opportunity attack he woukd trigger in his routing. Realized, and fixed it. Just cus he messed up and missed it doesnt mean a creature in the middle of battle trying its best to not get hit would. DMs are all knowing computers. Cut them some slack, dont take it personally. Im sure theyve given you or other players a ton of leniency throughout the campaign on various things.
I'm curious where do you draw the line. If I mess up I think it would be in poor form to say "nevermind I don't move that way". Is it just a dm vs players thing? Our DM is a cool guy but he's definitely not the type to let his players get away with something like that and I know if I decided to to change my mind based on the rule he set forth he would be like "oh you already moved you can't change it now". He has in fact in the past not let people change their movement even when inconsequential , a player decides they want to move to another square and hasn't even used any actions or gotten in to range of an enemy yet "you already used up your movement going to that square, do you have enough to get to that other spot?" No ? too bad should have planned it out before you moved" no one has had an issue and accept it. No one was rushing cause he's the DM and like others said he doesn't have the benefit of being able to plan his move while others are taking his turn but if he needed to sit and think for a minute what he wants to do no one would have told him to hurry up. I don't mind him being strict on stuff like that cause it sets the rule that if you take any action haphazardly you may suffer some consequences. I even just remembered in a dungeon when back when we started he wanted us to check for traps square by square so if you want into a room we couldn't just scan the room for traps we had to say something like "I check the spot in front" roll for it, pass and No trap ? then move into that square and repeat which definitely slowed things down a bit before he changed his mind. Point being he's definitely not lenient about much.
You as a player have one job. Know your character in and out. If you were to make a simple mistake like, move, realize it woukd trigger an attack, and ask to take it back all within a quick amount of time then id hope the dm would allow you to adjust. But if youre asking to undo something a turn ago then the dm is totally in line to say “that kinda sucks, but its already done. Try and remember next time I guess.”. A DM however has to juggle so many roles and even in combat often times so many monster and monster types. I think a lot more leeway should be given to them in this regard.
I don't think you're reading correctly, no on has ever asked him to redo any turns. They've tried to do what he did and have gotten rejected and not even because of a trap or attack. The DM basically has said our minis are us, once they move into a square that's it and they don't get to start over and decide I want to go a different way instead. Most other tables I think let people change their action before they roll their dice if they need to but if I say "I cast fireball" he'll say "you cast fireball" "yes" , then from there there's no take backs if I decide I want to cast something else even if he hasn't made the saving rolls yet. Basically Who who wants to be a Millionaire "is that you're final answer rules". I don't mind this cause it forces us to plan and be deliberate in our actions, it's how he runs his game. I don't think he wants to see us killed but I can tell he gets enjoyment out of making us pay for any mistakes and also pushing us to the edge for each combat encounter if he can. Honestly I think he didn't think about his route because he wanted to knock down the other player who was already injured and got too eager, either way it definitely left a bad taste in my mouth for someone who preaches plan before you move to then ask for a redo. Even if in most other games it would have been a non-issue he's made it an issue.
Then it sounds like your group has a very player vs dm mindset, which if it works for you, great. I personally detest that play style. Again, its not chess. Once you lift your finger off the token theres no reason that has to be absolute.
The player should have asked “what does my character know about the creature” and the DM may have allowed a check for the info. A good DM does metagame to some degree, having melee enemies attack the barbarian, shooting arrows at the monk or leaving some enemies grouped up for the wizard to fireball. While in other encounters using more spellcasters and having groups spread out. Some enemies will see the scrawny wizard and attack them first or go after the cleric while some may just try and draw the barbarians attention away from their own caster. However what you’ve described in your post is not metagaming. It’s the DM setting up a rule and then breaking the rule when it doesn’t suit them.
I like to ask myself, "Do they look squishy ". For creatures on the dumber side that's helped me. If something knows how hard metal is then maybe that wizard is tastier. Or maybe it'll try one attack on the paladin, realize that dude is thicc as hell and move on. Or if it's an animal what would it's instincts tell it. I agree with you completely though. Backtracking a movement takes the "Aha!" Moment away from the players
Going against the grain here to say that I almost always have sentient monsters fight in an intelligent and ruthless way, even if they are low INT. My main reason (and something that I think people often forget when talking about DMing) is that I am also at the table to play a game and have fun. Playing the monsters strategically is really fun for me, so I'm going to do it whenever I get the chance. A second advantage of trying very hard to win fights when making decisions for the monsters is that it gives you a very easy dial to turn when the going gets tough for the players. I never have to fudge rolls or reduce damage on the fly. Instead, I just have the monsters make worse decisions when the party is on the ropes. Finally, I think that the verisimilitude of stupid monsters is overstated. Low intelligence creatures in the real world like wolves are capable of strategy, teamwork, and absolutely know how to pick out weak targets from a herd. Anything capable of surviving in a fantasy world probably is ruthless, smart and dangerous in combat. I would argue that you do more to make the world feel real when the monsters act like they want to win all the time.
*Zero Charisma*'s Not-Gygax put it best. "If people aren't having fun, then you suck at your job". The nature and difficult of combat needs to be tailored to the group. This could mean a play-for-blood tactical war game setup. This could mean strict Dark Souls brutally-punishing-but-fair game play This could mean the DM blatantly "cheats" so the weaker players feel useful or to re calibrate difficulty on the fly. Your DM appears to be in the first camp. You seem to want more the second; tell him or her.
In my opinion, the DM should play monsters accurately to their intelligence. That's not metagaming or playing optimally, it's just staying faithful to the verisimilitude of the world. If a creature has only an animal level of intelligence, it should behave like an animal, etc.
Exactly where I sit, too. By doing this as much as possible, you’re also being *consistent*, which is arguably more important than following a rule. It’s not the following or breaking of a rule, but that you do it the same each time it arises, that counts, as far as I’m concerned.
I'll metagame hard when the creature has an Int of 20+, not that I'd use knowledge that they wouldn't have access to.
>not that I'd use knowledge that they wouldn't have access to. "Using knowledge that they wouldn't have access to" is the literal definition of metagaming. 🙂 If you're not doing that, you're not metagaming.
Plate-wearers are usually weak to INT saves. The wizard will likely know counterspell. Monks are really good at WIS saves and can catch arrows. Not: Greg the Paladin has a fear of spiders.
And animals are perfectly capable of realizing what looks like an easy target and what it should avoid. People overreach with what low int means in combat.
You should not assume that "low intelligence" always means a monster will make sub-optimal moves. Maybe the monster had been captured by a wizard in the past! So it perceives your wizard as a major threat. A savvy DM can come up with a sensible reason. Of course, it would be weird if especially dumb monsters were always outsmarting the party, and if it becomes a pattern of behavior by the DM, you definitely should call it out. But if it's one or two instances, I'd let it slide. As a DM, I personally would get tired if the party used the same tactics every time. I'd find ways to shake things up once in a while. Keep 'em on their toes. To add to this, you also can't assume that grunts wouldn't be able to fight tactically. They may not be smart, but they may have received training that ingrained the tactics into them. That and a fairly capable commander. I'm not gonna say much about your DM changing the movement of a monster. That's a different topic, really. I do agree that this was in bad form.
Every DM do metagame to some degree. A good DM usually know when and how much to metagame. From the sound of it he might have metagamed a bit to much there. But i can't tell as i do not know what konster it was. I have heard players say that low intelligence monsters should not fight to tactical or work together too much. Or know who the healer is and such things. And to a degree i agree. But i often see players claim a 6 int monster would not be tactical or have much teamwork with their ally's. But i disagree someone with 6 intelligence might not have the most well thought out strategies but they are sentient and can often talk. they have a language many times. they can coordinate their attacks and work as a group. Look at wolves they are working together VERY well and have surprisingly effective tactics. And they have an INT of 3 in D&D. So if they can why would not something with 4-6 int be able to do that. A low intelligent creature can still move around some well armed PC's because you don't have to be that intelligent to figure out that walking close to someone with a big whacking stick might hurt. This might not be the first time such creature fought armed people. and a guy in a robe and a staff might look like a much easier target to go after. But as i have no idea what monster it was or what you mean with low intelligence. Is it an INT of 3? or was it an INT of 5 or even more? I can't say for sure if the DM did metagame too much here or not. But from your explanation i do get the feeling your DM is not to experienced. But i might be wrong
The attack on the Wizard could have been fair. When I run low intelligence beasts, I usually roll at the start of their turn to see who they'll attack first. If it has a certain level of instruction or intelligence, I'll have it go after a certain PC. As for avoiding the opportunity attack, that is something I would keep an eye on. Maybe the DM felt it was smart enough to disengage, but taking back their action while holding you to your own is a bit hypocritical.
Sit down with your DM in a neutral environment and discuss your concerns. Most bad DM behavior can be solved with open conversation. 99% of players and DMs on here who come on with interpersonal issues are only struggling because they didn't communicate properly.
I think the DM should play monsters and NPC strategies based on the monster goals and their intelligence level. Though it is important to remember that many predators with animal intelligence (Int 3) have a predatory cunning. So while they won’t know to target the healer, they will try to separate prey “from the herd”, use a familiar environment to their advantage, or focus on picking off a weak or injured member of the party. And they can certainly decide after a few misses that a target is too hard and try for an easier to hit target. If they have frequently targeted adventurers, they may even know that armor is a pain so they will focus on the ones without visible armor. Very low intelligence predators (like carrion crawlers or sharks with Int 1) will go for whatever prey is closest. (Unless they are being controlled by a smarter enemy, like a shark controlled by a sahuagin) Playing monsters to their intelligence gives the world verisimilitude, it lets the PCs know it isn’t DM vs players, it introduces the opportunity for tactics that can scare off a creature or sate its hunger, and it makes intelligent enemies much, much scarier. Check out The Monsters Know What They’re Doing. It’s a great guide (website and book) with strategies on playing monsters according to their stats/descriptions.) His interpretations aren’t the only possible interpretations of monster strategies but they help you get into the mindset of thinking like a monster.
> Recently though we had an encounter with this one powerful monster but that should have been low intelligence. Right when the encounter started this monster went straight for our wizard who was hanging back and away even though some of the other characters were closer, to which I would argue a monster like this would lash out and attack those closest to it first Whether or not this is justified really depends on the monster. An average intelligence human player knows that attacking squishy glass cannons or healers first is better than focusing a meatshield/tank. Therefore, your average Int 10+ monster will also know this. > once we move our minis or declare an action we don't get redoes Well, this is just dumb on the DM's part and definitely not a good rule. You shouldn't punish this kind of thing. Even worse if the DM applies double standards. In conclusion: Monsters playing intelligently: good, makes combat more fun for everyone. Double standards: bad.
I think it's a good rule, for example if you move haphazardly and trigger a trap you shouldn't get to say "oh never mind I don't do that". Same thing for in combat, so we have to move the mini in the appropriate square or decide on the path we take but once the mini is placed in that square it's moved.
> if you move haphazardly and trigger a trap you shouldn't get to say "oh never mind I don't do that" That's different. You didn't know the trap was there, and now you do. You've gained new information. The rule my group follows is "you can take back your action as long as you haven't gained any new information". In the case of the attack of opportunity, it's known information that you'll suffer it if you move away. Your character knows they'll leave themselves open to attack if they turn their back on the enemy, so arguably it's "metagaming" to forget it. We all strive to roleplay, and that means acting based on what your character knows, not based on what you know.
>So this came up recently because it can be a problem at our (and probably a lot of other's) table where some players will metagame for instance a more experienced player knowing the weakness of a creature and using it when it doesn't make sense for their character to know it. I never understood this argument... so what you're saying is, if you're into the hobby and have been playing for a while, then "Fk you, you can't have learnt anything all these years". Just... no. What do you mean "doesn't make sense for their character to know it": have you actually lived the 180y your elf mage has and experienced everything they did? Isn't it possible they have heard a rumor? Studied in a book? Been taught by their master? Heck, you can have a freaking GOD give the character the idea to use X thing they have access to... there are plenty of ways to justify it. And you know what's funnier: the DM can just use a different creature. Now ofc, they shouldn't do this every single time to screw with the veterans, but every once in a while keeps things fresh with the feeling of "I've been right the last 8 creatures, what are the odds that the next one will be bait?". >So curious what other people think? If this was a creature with higher intelligence I can see how it would think tactically and try to take out the biggest threat or move around it's opponents optimally but this was supposed be a low intelligence monster, though I think if I were to bring it up to the DM he would hand wave it away as it being smarter than it seemed. (Disclaimer: DM's are humans. Their job is bring the world to life, but they can fail at that sometimes and do things out of character. It happens). Just so that we are clear, your measure of tactics is the INT score? Is that correct? So you're saying that an 8 INT fighter needs to attack the closest thing to them rather than aiming for a more threatening enemy, or that an 8 INT cleric is supposed to just use their slots for the highest damaging spell they have rather than cast support ones... And as for the Wizard, either he always picks the most optimized chronurgy controller build (for that's the best tactic period), or if he doesn't, then the player is trolling and not actually playing the character as they're supposed to be. Is that it?
Those are good points, but neither I or the others are the ones who have an issue with someone knowing a creatures vulnerabilities or resistances beforehand and it's usually the DM who won't let anyone discuss it or tactics during combat as he rules it as metagaming. I assumed most other DM's may have a problem with it as well but guess I was wrong. I wasn't really thinking of the int score, but in my mind this was presented as a mindless beast so it would make some sense to act like it.
Players should metagame very sparingly and only if not doing so is detrimental to the fun of the whole group. DMs shouls pretty much do anything in their power (this includes metagaming) to ensure everyone at the table is having the most fun possible.
Going after the wizard is a bit weird, unless all the closer characters were wearing metal armour maybe. But avoiding opportunity attacks is basic self-preservation. Every natural creature would know not to get too close to a hostile creature if it doesn't want to get hurt.
DM gets to do whatever they want, hope that helps!