DM perspective is this fair? I've been enlightened about guards

[ddude987]

In the world of DnD where wizards sling fireballs (except if you're on this board) and fighters cry in the corner slay demons and dragons, your average guardsman is quite useless. I've seen many-a-thread about the point of guards, and I always thought to myself "they kinda are useless." I finally reached a conclusion, guards aren't there to kill all foes against them, they are there to cost their foes losses.

Let's assume foes are the players at this time. The players want to assault a merchant caravan, and the caravan has some guards. Taking into account power creep, and thus putting the PCs on a low, but above the average mook, level, probably the 5-8 range, the guards either are going to number in a small army, or aren't going to provide true protection. Would it be fair for the guards to gang up on one PC at a time specifically trying to kill them?

The reasoning would be if the threat of one of the party members dying is very very real the party would not be so careless. From the guards perspective, they know they won't succeed in killing all the attackers, so why not seriously kill one.

tl;dr the bolded statement

[nedz]

It depends upon the situation, but guards are really there to block low level nuisances and raise the alarm if something bigger comes along.

As for the tactical question: ganging up on your enemies one at a time is a standard tactic which is why things like Whirlwind Attack are quite poor. There are also the teamwork benefits in PH2 if you really want to go to town with this approach.

[Red Fel]

Would it be fair for the guards to gang up on one PC at a time specifically trying to kill them?

Fair? Not in the traditional sense of the word. Sensible? Entirely.

If we're looking at guards in light of other NPCs, they tend to be roughly on par with others - at least at lower levels. So it's not unreasonable for guards to engage in one-on-one or two-on-one engagements.

But when you're looking at guards versus PC-level threats, the dynamic changes. As Nedz suggests, part of their role is to buy the city time to bring in the big guns; in that sense, they're basically redshirt meatshields, intended to block as many people as possible and prevent as much collateral damage as possible. But if the guards decided that their objective was actually to apprehend or subdue a target, focused fighting is perfectly reasonable as a tactic.

This is similarly true for PCs. I know there are some people who like to spread damage, or are afraid to waste excess damage on a near-dead enemy when there are other enemies about, but as a rule, this is a tactically poor decision. A weakened enemy is still a threat; a dead enemy isn't. (Exception: Undead.) Ganging up on a foe is just as valid a tactical choice for PCs as it is for NPCs.

Tl;dr: Yes. Guards would be perfectly justified in ganging up on the biggest threat they could find, subduing him, and moving on to the next-biggest.

[rexx1888]

why are all your guards low level :\

their job is literally to participate in encounters all day every day, get paid for it with a monthly stipend, and that doesnt count bribes and or random stuff dropped from criminals that isnt catalogued. I dont see why a guard has to be low level when level one characters level up doing less than them.

Maybe the Dmg says otherwise, but if it does you should discount that. Theres nothing within ranges 1-8 that players will do that it isnt perfectly ordinary for people to expect guards to do as well... So, rather than murdering players with focused fire, why not make some of those guards a higher level an make it a fair fight :D

[Tvtyrant]

I give my Orcs flamethrowers and jetpacks (faerun artificer class.) If I was using guards for a big city their swat would have the equivalent.

[ddude987]

In response to why low level guards, as you increase level the amount of people at that level depreciates greatly. Not only does it seem unfeasible to have a city garrisoned by high level guards, but the cost of hiring them would be enormous, and in addition, if they are such a high level why would they take a generic city guard job instead of other more profitable and interesting (and respected) jobs.

[winter92]

The only time I've seen NPC's not prioritize targets like this is when they're expressly stupid or actually incapable of thought (raging, animals, etc.) The last encounter my DM gave us involved invisible assassins with spears and short swords - they all appeared to hit the psion in the same round, 6 on 1. Killing the easiest target or biggest threat first is a natural, sensible tactic - it's even more important if they're badly outclassed, because getting one kill might drive away the terrifying attackers.

If you want to make your guards seem rational but be lower threat, abuse movement rules. Don't give them reach weapons and make them not want to fire into melee, so that they can only gang up on each PC at 5-6:1 instead of 30:1. If you feel confident in your players, I say go for it. Spears, crossbows, the lot, all on the juiciest target. Your PCs are attacking a defended caravan, so they get the initiative to set traps, split up or lure away guards, and do whatever else they can think of to avoid getting mobbed.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

So, I'm not going to say that this philosophy is out right wrong, but I see two problems you'll need to contend with.

1. Piling on rather than reacting to the closest threat goes against natural instincts. It's the kind of thing that will really need to be drilled into someone. This makes it more suitable to fanatics than work-a-day guards and raises the question of whether this training time could have been raising their character level rather than drilling tactics.

If anyone asks about the "why" and gets an honest answer; they're being told that they're expendable trash. This will probably be bad for morale.

2. By trying to inflict a death rather than win they may be hurting their chance of winning and also risk provoking escalation. Going out of your way to kill one attacker increases the odds that your enemy will not accept surrender, use coup de graces, and chase you down and kill you to the last man possibly desecrate corpses.

[sleepyphoenixx]

As long as your party is competent there is no reason not to play your NPCs to the best of their abilities.
Normal example warriors almost never have reach weapons (or useful feats), but the assumed level of PC optimization is also rather low.

If your players optimize there is no reason not to do the same to your NPCs. Instead of longswords give them reach weapons. Exchange crappy feats for more effective options. Then have them use those things to the best possible effect. Curbstomping weaklings isn't much fun.

If they're intelligent they're going to use tactics. Every level 1 warrior should have at least a basic understanding of tactics, as should intelligent monsters.
Your players may have some problems if they optimize and are used to standard enemies straight out of the MM, but they'll learn to deal with it soon enough.
Having serious opposition instead of stomping all over weaklings definitely makes the game more enjoyable, at least to me.

[winter92]

Having serious opposition instead of stomping all over weaklings definitely makes the game more enjoyable, at least to me.

To me, this is huge. The standard Player's Handbook example of attacking a caravan would be, roughly "Fire crossbows from the woods, then charge. Kill or disable the low-level, unoptimized guards who try to fight the closest enemy."

That's great and all, but I have so much more fun when the plan is "Lure away the outriders with Ghost Sound and ambush them before they can call for backup. Ride ahead and rig a large tree to drop across the middle of the caravan. Send half the party to noisily threaten the guards on one side, and leave the caster and rogue lying in wait to take out the guards from the other side as they try to circle the tree."

Good tactics are way more fun, but they're only worth employing if you need them. I honestly prefer attacking the caravan with outriders, good tactics, and caster guards hidden in the wagons to disable us as we fight the obvious enemies.

[jedipotter]

Let's assume foes are the players at this time. The players want to assault a merchant caravan, and the caravan has some guards. Taking into account power creep, and thus putting the PCs on a low, but above the average mook, level, probably the 5-8 range, the guards either are going to number in a small army, or aren't going to provide true protection. Would it be fair for the guards to gang up on one PC at a time specifically trying to kill them?

Sounds fair to me. I make most of my guards tough. Now, does this make every guard an epic level threat? No. But it does make roughly half of the guards in the world a challenge for the PCs.

Now the game rules make this impossible, like WBL and the demographics. By the rules, everyone in the world is a low level useless character. Though there is a twist, as you could make the merchant caravan an ''official encounter''. And once you do that, you can make the guards anything the DM wants. The rules ''allow'' the DM to make an encounter challenging. But if you do, you will unbalance the ''every NPC is useless'' rules. A group of guards that can take on 7th level player characters, would be demi gods to just about every other NPC in a town. Though this is true with any encounter.

So the best thing to do: throw all the ''weak NPC'' rules out the window and ignore them.

[Snowbluff]

So the best thing to do: throw all the ''weak NPC'' rules out the window and ignore them.

Then why the hell does anyone need adventurers to do anything?

[Synar]

If your guards know they will fail, why do they keep fighting? Are they loyal to death (supposing they don't do it for the money or have some code of honnor) and are trying to buy the people of the caravan time? Else, really, they should just run. Honestly, knowing that you killed at least one of them is a poor consolation when you are dead.

(And if it is they general role as you implied, I hope they are paid a fortune, since they will and are expected to die at the first encounter with any threatening ennemy.)

[BRC]

Perfectly fair. Guards are intelligent, if they know that the PC's are all powerful combatants, they'll try to focus-fire them down one at a time.

It's the PC's job to figure out how to counter that.

That said, Don't make the guards perfect tacticians. Maybe there is an officer shouting orders and coordinating the attack, if the PC's kill him the guards are more likely to become unfocused. Guards with a fighter in their face are going to be trying to deal with that fighter, rather than rationally five foot stepping away to keep attacking the wizard.

Plus, they'll switch focus based on what they see as the biggest threat, not what you, as the DM, Know to be the biggest threat.

[Alex12]

For caravan guards specifically, ganging up on targets is sensible. Caravan guards are there to protect from essentially two things: wild animals (non-sapient dangers) and bandits (thinking and planning creatures).
Thinking specifically about bandits, it only makes sense that part of the equation is that the guards' main job isn't to kill all the bandits, it's to make it so attacking the caravan in the first place isn't worth it. If they can make it dangerous enough to attacking bandits that they'll lose a few men and/or have to expend consumable supplies greater than the value of probable gains, then they won't attack in the first place.

[ddude987]

For caravan guards specifically, ganging up on targets is sensible. Caravan guards are there to protect from essentially two things: wild animals (non-sapient dangers) and bandits (thinking and planning creatures).
Thinking specifically about bandits, it only makes sense that part of the equation is that the guards' main job isn't to kill all the bandits, it's to make it so attacking the caravan in the first place isn't worth it. If they can make it dangerous enough to attacking bandits that they'll lose a few men and/or have to expend consumable supplies greater than the value of probable gains, then they won't attack in the first place.

That was my process, I was just curious if it was "fair" to the players. Players tend to treasure characters they spend a lot of time on so killing them is often a hard blow to the player. On the other side, even though we have challenging encounters at my table, perhaps the players should learn to be more careful, and think beyond can we beat them or can they beat us.

As to the guards-are-strong-screw-the-rules-I've-have-money thought, I like to keep verisimilitude and I can't see higher-leveled people actually taking guard jobs at a point. Sure it challenges the PCs but in terms of verisimilitude is seems to crumble.

[Arkhaic]

Yeah, generally I would deal some nonlethal damage first. Maybe one of the guards has a merciful weapon. In general nonlethal damage scares PCs more than lethal: being dead is less of a hassle than being imprisoned at higher levels. You could adapt Psionic Restraints to effect arcane and divine opponents as well: Lesser gauntlets let them cast up to third level (no somatic components), Average can cast up to second level, Greater can cast 0 and 1st level spells, Damping only casts 0 level spells.

[ElenionAncalima]

It depends on your players.

Some players will take it personally that you are only targeting them and/or won't appreciate that they are going to end up sitting out and watching everyone play.

Other players wouldn't expect anything less that the NPCs using such an obviously superior strategy. They may even be flattered that they were chosen as the prime threat.

You probably have a better idea than we do, how your players will react.

[VoxRationis]

It depends a lot on your setting, I suppose. In higher-level, higher-magic settings, guards play a much different role than in my settings, where threats tend to be more mundane and not especially dissimilar from those which appear in real life.
It's fallacious to assume that guards are routinely taking on encounters in the way adventurers see the term. While I am not a member of a police department, I would consider it unlikely that the average police officer gets in life-or-death firefights on any sort of regular basis. I doubt that analogous officers in past times and places did either.

[Arbane]

There's a reason "Geek the Mage First" is standard operating procedure in Shadowrun, and it applies just as well to D&D.

[Snails]

The reasoning would be if the threat of one of the party members dying is very very real the party would not be so careless. From the guards perspective, they know they won't succeed in killing all the attackers, so why not seriously kill one.

If it is so obvious that defeat is certain, then why are they not parleying to negotiate terms of surrender? Why do they not flee? Why do they not offer to work for the PCs?

There are some kinds of opponents who will relish blood so much that a chance at revenge will seduce them away from a small chance to save their own life. But that would be an atypical kind of combatant, not a guard.

The guards do not like their options. You, the DM, do not like the guards options. That is not a good reason to metagame so that the guards act irrational in a manner that lets you, the DM, feel less bad about your own encounter design.

[Knaight]

their job is literally to participate in encounters all day every day, get paid for it with a monthly stipend, and that doesnt count bribes and or random stuff dropped from criminals that isnt catalogued. I dont see why a guard has to be low level when level one characters level up doing less than them.

The vast majority of guarding is standing or walking around keeping an eye on things. It's hardly constant violence.

[Hazrond]

There's a reason "Geek the Mage First" is standard operating procedure in Shadowrun, and it applies just as well to D&D.

Honestly i think that the guards should gang up on the fighter first, until they actually KNOW a guy is a mage then they can only see the wall of muscle thats charging their line and at that point its a more reasonable plan to actually kee fighting the fighter, remember guys there are no such things as "Tiers" in the actual game world, they wouldnt know that the fighter is so much less powerful than the wizard and would probably focus on what aears to be the biggest threat, the fighter (at least till the wizard pulls some flashy crowd control like black tentacles or something)

[torrasque666]

If it is so obvious that defeat is certain, then why are they not parleying to negotiate terms of surrender? Why do they not flee? Why do they not offer to work for the PCs?

There are some kinds of opponents who will relish blood so much that a chance at revenge will seduce them away from a small chance to save their own life. But that would be an atypical kind of combatant, not a guard.

The guards do not like their options. You, the DM, do not like the guards options. That is not a good reason to metagame so that the guards act irrational in a manner that lets you, the DM, feel less bad about your own encounter design.

I would imagine the guards have some sort of sense of honor, one that says "it does not matter if I live or die, stop the foes!" and while spreading out into multiple 1v1 fights means that there is a high chance that they all die and nothing is achieved, if they gang up and kill one attacker, well, that is one foe that has been stopped. 1 > 0, so they accomplished SOMETHING.

As for those who say "well if they're that strong, why aren't they adventurers?" what if the guards have a family, or some other sort of attachment to the settlement? Adventurer's typically live out of inns and on the road, going from loot-to-loot. The guard doesn't want to leave their family alone, in a vulnerable position, when they are away for months at a time making money, so they take a more steady job. They don't want to risk their lives on a daily basis to make ends meet. There are a number of reasons for why they wouldn't adventure, just like why you don't see thousands of Wizards adventuring(even at lower levels). They are likely getting a steady income without personal risk, while still conducting magical research, or doing whatever. Use your brains peoples.

[awa]

Not only will the typical guard spend very little time fighting most of his "fighting" will be against much weaker foes and not to the death. Even soldiers spend very little time fighting and only a small fraction of an army actual dies in combat.

[icefractal]

If it is so obvious that defeat is certain, then why are they not parleying to negotiate terms of surrender? Why do they not flee? Why do they not offer to work for the PCs?

Pretty much this. The guards should be using tactics, but they should be using tactics with the goals of:
1) Staying alive.
2) If possible, protecting the cargo.

So making a quick rush at a single target, when it looks like they might be able to scare away the attackers with an early victory - sure, go for it. Pursuing that even when they're getting defeated, and could be taking steps to survive instead? Doesn't really make sense.


Now regarding challenge -
At low levels, a dozen caravan guards are a tough challenge, just using normal tactics. Once the PCs get to the point where that's not longer true, then normal caravans move into the "cakewalk" category - that's what a level system means! You can have a royal caravan with higher-quality guards and stretch things out for more levels, but eventually "rob a caravan" is a just a simple task like "kick open a door" that isn't supposed to be a big deal. Time for something new.

[jedipotter]

Then why the hell does anyone need adventurers to do anything?

Sure, the classic D&D idea is that the whole world is low level useless people that can't handle anything more powerful then a fly. Then if anything more powerful then a fly, like say a rat, comes along they scream for adventurers to help.

It's a ''great way'' to ''trick, force, and manipulate'' the players to play the game. I guess it's one way to run a game....

[nedz]

One of the standard tactics to attack any target is to launch a diversionary attack to draw the guards off the real target.

So making a quick rush at a single target, when it looks like they might be able to scare away the attackers with an early victory - sure, go for it. Pursuing that even when they're getting defeated, and could be taking steps to survive instead? Doesn't really make sense.

Which is what the guards could well have fallen for here. Even worse they have now bunched up and can be taken down with AoEs.

It depends how tactically savvy the players are really.

[VoxRationis]

As for those who say "well if they're that strong, why aren't they adventurers?" what if the guards have a family, or some other sort of attachment to the settlement? Adventurer's typically live out of inns and on the road, going from loot-to-loot. The guard doesn't want to leave their family alone, in a vulnerable position, when they are away for months at a time making money, so they take a more steady job. They don't want to risk their lives on a daily basis to make ends meet. There are a number of reasons for why they wouldn't adventure, just like why you don't see thousands of Wizards adventuring(even at lower levels). They are likely getting a steady income without personal risk, while still conducting magical research, or doing whatever. Use your brains peoples.

First off, adventurers need not always wander great distances from their homes. Urban campaigns are a thing. Not always the default, but they do exist. A metropolis can have oodles of adventure within a few miles of one another.
Second off, adventurers are not necessarily "making a living" as their primary focus for why they do what they do. I find this attitude a lot around here. The "murderhobo" is NOT the default adventurer. He is a parody, a caricature of the adventurer, who typically has a good reason for embarking on the dangerous but lucrative missions he or she might undertake. These good reasons are why we DMs bother writing plots.
Third, if, as you say, the guards are high-level, capable sorts who encounter large amounts of danger frequently in their battles against magical monsters and renegade wizards, a little dungeon crawling is not a steadier, less dangerous career path than guarding.

[firebrandtoluc]

Assorted thoughts.

Your job as the DM includes making sure encounters are appropriate for your group.

What is logical in real life might not be logical in DnD.

Guards ganging up on someone has the advantage that the target has an okay chance of just being knocked out rather than knocked to negative ten in one hit.

Guards aren't there to deal with combat demigods. They keep the local riff raff in line. They sound alarms.