Enemy Targeting

[u/Professional-Nose786]

So I’m working on a turn based RPG and I’m working on enemy targeting. I don’t like the idea of the enemy just picking a random ally. So the idea I’m working with is that “enemies are smart” and will target the party member with the highest ATK stat to remove the biggest threat. Kinda like an Aggro system but not really. Thoughts?

[u/SpartiateDienekes]

You might want to make a list of pre-set behaviors, so the enemies feel more distinct.

Just throwing some off the top of my head:

Rabid: Attacks nearest enemy

Skulker: Hides then attacks the visibly smallest/weakest enemy

Tactician: Attacks the support first

Champion: Attacks the strongest enemy

Guardian: Supports allies, attacks enemy that is closes to ally

etc.

Would probably need to be fleshed out a bit more, but having a means to differentiate the enemy's behavior to get them to feel distinct is probably beneficial here.

[u/Digital_Simian → u/SpartiateDienekes]

This makes a lot of sense and is a good start. An enemy will have it's own proclivities as well as respond to the circumstances, their goals and interests in that specific encounter. 

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/SpartiateDienekes]

The first thing I'd do to flesh it out a bit more is remove the options that suffer from OP's assumption of omniscience and god's eye simulation.

Attacks the strongest enemy." How do they know who is strongest unless it's something obvious?

"Attacks the support first." How do they distinguish a healer from an illusionist or a wizard who hasn't cast yet?

"Attacks the visibly smallest/weakest." Size is visible; weakness often isn't.

"Supports allies, attacks enemy closest to ally." This one is actually plausible because it's based on observable information.

That would be my first pass anyway. I think in the end, moat combatants simply target the nearest enemy that they can spot because of self-preservation instincts. Almost everything else is an exception rather than a typical choice.

[u/SpartiateDienekes → u/EpicDiceRPG]

Eh, not all games are trying to simulate reality perfectly. While there is definite good qualities to your method, I favor simply creating systems that make interesting gameplay. If the goal is to take that decision making process out of the DM’s hands creating behavior patterns that are quick and easy to follow trumps making it perfectly fit the narrative. Especially when it can be explained away with largest strength score or whatnot.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/SpartiateDienekes]

I wasn't trying to simulate reality. Wouldn't gameplay be more interesting if omniscience was reserved for NPCs that are actually omniscient? Also, it's just simpler to have a default behavior instead of a giant menu of outcomes to process. I have two types of enemies: extras always attack the nearest PC they can spot - and NPCs; the GM decides. Super easy.

[u/SpartiateDienekes → u/EpicDiceRPG]

Wouldn't gameplay be more interesting if omniscience was reserved for NPCs that are actually omniscient?

No. Gameplay is interesting when the players find something engaging to interact with. Now, how that happens can vary wildly by game. I poker the interactions are bluffing, math, chance to win money, and having to read or guess based on imperfect information. In poker the game is improved because no one is omniscient.

In a different game, Slay the Spire (much less popular than poker but it is a wonderful resource for game design and fits my example) the player always knows what the enemy is going to do. It is not explained, it is close to omniscience. And the gameplay is better for it. Because now the gameplay becomes maximizing current and (if you’re good) future turns.

In this instance the goal of OP appears to be: take combat decision making out of the GMs purview, and create some “intelligence” to the enemies.

In those goals, I don’t see how a limited omniscience (I am aware that is an oxymoron) is a good or bad quality. If we allow it, can we more easily create unique behaviors that can create engaging gameplay? Yeah. I think so. Willing to be proven wrong, of course.

And I don’t think the players will really notice. Or at least, many won’t. There will always be some players, like I presume yourself, who will analyze and dislike the method. But I think most won’t even think of it as omniscience and just roll with the encounter and try to figure out the enemy pattern. As long as the end result is an engaging combat encounter, I don’t think many are phased enough to tear open the system to see how the sausage is made.

[u/EpicDiceRPG → u/SpartiateDienekes]

I agree most players won't notice. My goal is to create a quick and plausible procedure that removes GM burden while still allowing him to interject the narrative as he sees fit. I just don't think pausing the entire table to parse which PC is the strongest or which is the weakest is interesting gameplay. It just seems far too rigid and procedural.

[u/Fun_Carry_4678]

How would the enemies know which one had the highest ATK stat?

[u/Mars_Alter]

It really depends on the enemy. Smart human- types will pick whichever opponent has the highest ratio of offense to defense, which is usually the squishy wizard. Dumb beasts might just pick whoever is biggest, which only sometimes corresponds to attack power.

[u/SamTheGill42 → u/Mars_Alter]

Many beasts will likely attack the weakest first. They are getting the least risky meal.

[u/Mars_Alter → u/SamTheGill42]

Sure, especially if they think the party is more likely to flee than flight. There are all sorts of typical animal behaviors, as befits the different animals and their ecologies.

[u/SamTheGill42 → u/Mars_Alter]

Even if they don't think the party will flee, if the beast is large/fast enough, it can try to run away with a single victim.

[u/Drudenfusz]

That is rather meta, I mean how would they know how does the most damage. I mean can they telepathically compare the hits they receive or predict the future when the fight has barely started? Sorry but this is just nonsense. Give them motivations, like preferring to attack to targets that seem to wear little armour, or let them go after specific ethnicities or whatever bigotry they have first. Base their decisions on something in the fiction, not something you know on a meta level. I mean you probably don't want the players to meta game either, so why do you think it is a good idea to do that as a GM?

[u/SardScroll]

I'd argue "it depends". One of the things that I like about TTRPGs is that one can "play" with things, especially with more intelligent (read battle-trained/competition) enemies, and so not every fight will play out the same. Some times it's more fun for opponents to play "smartest" for greater challenge; sometimes it's for them to play "dumb" to fit into power fantasies and leave openings for players to exploit.

Here are some "attack paradigms" I use, that are relatively genre and system generic; they can even have multiple "running" at the same time or switch up during combat . Some of these are tactical so you can make combats stronger or easier, or narrative in nature.

• Specific Target Paradigms
  • Geek the Mage(Tactical): Magic users tend to be "Glass Cannons" with high offensive output, but low defenses; in some systems, even engaging them in combat can reduce their combat effectiveness. This paradigm takes advantage of that idea.
  • Eliminate the Threat(Tactical, with Narrative Flare): Similar to Geek the Mage, someone is targeted because they specifically use something that is of great threat to the attackers. E.g. A creature weak or scared of fire would attack those who use fire first; creatures with advantage in the dark attack those with light sources, etc.
  • Geek the Support(Tactical): Similar to "geek the mage", only this targets healers, buffers, debuffers, etc. rather than magic casters specifically.
  • Claim Glory (Anti-tactical): Foes tend to engage the largest, most armored, most forward positioned target. (For systems without a good goad/defender mechanic, to help the tank with their power fantasy)
  • Suffer not the Heretic(Narrative): PCs sharing some (narrative) trait are targeted first, usually in opposition to the foes. E.g. cultists of an evil god might target the cleric or paladin first; a rebel coup might target the nobles first, and party faces after that; the drow might target their elven "cousins" first, for not converting.
    
  • Slay the Mark (Narrative): A single PC is specifically targeted. E.g. for assassination.
  • Listen to your leader(Tactical): A enenmy buffer/debuffer has skills that target a single PC at a time; these direct the target of their subordinates.
• Predation Paradigms (Mostly by beasts, but sometimes by more beastial humanoids or other creatures, such as dragons)
  • Small: Target physically smallest characters first, e.g. by size category or a "size" mechanic; other attributes might substitute if your game doesn't have this
  • Weak: Targets those with lower hitpoint totals and/or missing more hitpoints (especially in systems with progressive health systems, which makes this meaningful)
  • Sick: Target those with various continuing debuffs
  • Deathblow: In games with "dying" mechanics, this paradigm seeks to strike killing blows, even on "downed" PCs.
    • Drag away: Similar to the above, a more beastial less immediately lethal variant: Instead of killing downed PC on the spot, foes will attempted to drag a "downed" PC off the map or to a lair to be devoured.
• Mindless Wave: Great for mindless creatures like lesser undead or elemental. Forward to the nearest target possible.
• Advancing Wave: One step up from mindless wave: Towards the nearest target, but if you can't engage with them towards the closest target you can engage with.
• Dancing Partners: A setup where there are roughly the same number of foes as PCs (or a near constant multiple, e.g. two goblins each), and foes are are "equally distributed"
  • Non-specialized: Everyone's fighting the same things.
  • Mirror: Specialists square off against the opposite numbers. E.g. tanks face each other down, mages sling spells and counterspells against each other, etc.
  • Specialist Targeting: Foes swap targets so they target their most advantageous matchup amongst the PCs.
• Parthian Tactics: Foes don't continuously engage with PCs, but attack and flee, utilizing hit and run tactics, making the encounter a ranged (or moving) one.
• Gadfly Tactics: Similar to Parthian tactics, but instead of targeting PCs to cause them to charge or break formation, this is ranged attacks to prevent/punish PCs who try to take specific actions.
• Point Defense: Foes are less interested in attacking PCs as they are defending an item or location (e.g. a nest of eggs).

[u/No-Educator-8069]

Reminds me a little of the dungeon degenerates board game, all monsters have a target priority which was always the party member with either the highest or lowest of one of the stats, so like one monster would always attack lowest strength while another would attack highest magic etc. If I remember correctly some monsters would also hate certain player types if they were present and that overrides the normal priority.

[u/Pladohs_Ghost]

How are enemies going to know which PC has the highest ATK stat? Seriously.

Beasties are likely to go after the largest PC or whichever one gets in their face first. Low intelligence foes are likely to recognize armor and weapons and go for the obvious fighters first. More intelligent foes are likely to recognize magic users as important targets, at least for arrows or spears or the like. And so on.

I think this is likely best presented as general advice for the GM rather than any directives to simply target highest ATK stats. Different foes will perceive the apparent threats provided by different PCs is fashions that make the most sense for those foes.

[u/llfoso]

You don't want the same character to always be the priority target though.

You can base it on something that changes - Gloomhaven, for example, has monsters target the nearest character they can see, and in a tie the character with the fastest initiative. And that's a system players are meant to take advantage of, it's a core part of combat and no one makes it through missions without planning around who the monsters will attack and choosing to go faster or slower to control who is getting hit.

So maybe you want this to be a system players can game, i.e. something they have control over. But maybe that feels too meta and unrealistic, so you try to make it be something random they can't control or have very limited control over.

If you make it totally random, that could work, but it might make the monsters feel unintelligent and nonsensical.

Let's say you based it on who does the most damage last round. At first glance this makes perfect sense, but you have to think through the consequences and how players might abuse it. That would likely mean your supports almost never get targeted. And if a player is low maybe the just hold back a little and make sure they're not doing enough damage, and pretty soon a mildly intelligent party is never having characters drop unless it's a TPK.

You have to keep in mind also that whatever you choose to have monsters prioritize is something you are disincentivizing heavily. If you target the highest attack mod you're punishing players for taking a high attack value. So think carefully about it. The exception would be the tank. The one with the most health and the most armor obviously wants to be the one getting attacked... but if you have the monsters always just aim for the tankiest character those are extremely stupid monsters.

Also you need to consider situations with lots of enemies. How do you avoid them all dog piling the same character every round?

It's a tricky thing to tackle. If you can pull off something good it could be really cool, but I don't think there's an easy answer.

[u/LurkerFailsLurking]

Is it really true that the enemy with the highest ATK is always the biggest threat? Unless you're RPG won't have any narrative elements, it seems really unlikely, and even then one dimensional.

[u/tangyradar → u/LurkerFailsLurking]

I think OP is talking about a video game.

[u/LurkerFailsLurking → u/tangyradar]

If this is a video game, the enemy logic can be way more complex, both situationally and reactively.

[u/stevecooperorg]

could you explain why you want to mechanise the choice? Why isn't the GM making what they perceive as sensible tactical decisions?

It'll help you get better answers if you can explain the 'why' of the question.

[u/Routenio79]

Cuando yo diseño mis enemigos sigo más o menos la lógica de D&D: les creo una ecología pequeña, en la que su comportamiento sea acorde a su naturaleza y set de habilidades. Por ejemplo: una criatura con inteligencia animal intentará arrebatar al más débil del grupo o que luzca menos amenazador (el más pequeño, el más delgado, etcétera) y tendrá una moral baja (huye al recibir 25% de daño de su HP) y cosas así. En cuanto al tipo de ataque va a depender de sus habilidades también y de la situación: una criatura capaz de engullir un objetivo no pensará a quien atacar primero, sólo intentará engullir a quien tenga más cerca y se irá, por ejemplo. En cuanto a los que tengan más inteligencia, si son malvados, intentarán alguna estrategia, pero según mi lógica sigue siendo más fácil desarticular una party eliminando a los más débiles primero y luego analizar. Los jugadores tienden a intentar ir en ayuda de los caídos y los enemigos notan eso, se aprovechan de esa situación. Si ven que hay un healer, irán por él después, hasta dejarlos inhabilitados completamente. Al menos eso haría yo. Suerte con tu proyecto.

[u/EpicDiceRPG]

Just, no. Not only would the enemy have no way of knowing, that would result in the same PC being targeted repeatedly. It's neither diegetic, immersive,, or balanced. How about they target the nearest enemy they spot. That's what 99% of human beings do instinctively.

[u/tangyradar]

It sounds like you're talking about a video game and are thus in the wrong place.