The Role of Melee Combatants in a Group
#1
So far, my time spent playing World of Warcraft has been primarily split between playing either the Warrior or Priest (with a little of time spent on Mage). In this time, I've noticed that a lot of players just don't understand how it is to play a Priest in a large party entering an instance dungeon. I'm going to detail some of the things that I've seen work and others that I've seen fail miserably thus far as far as tactics goes so that hopefully everyone who reads this will be able to better play their role when they've got a Priest to protect so that the Priest will be able to keep everyone healed and happy.

As you normally wander the map in World of Warcraft, you will usually encounter mobs one at a time. Occasionally you'll have to fight two at a time. If you have some bad luck or aren't careful enough, that can balloon up to three at a time. But usually small combat is the name of the game. Instances are a different beat entirely. It's fairly common in instances to have 2, 3, or 4 mobs all chained together so you can't separate them. With more mobs running around, you've got to change your tactics or your group will probably die time and time again.

-----------------------------------
Why it's different

Taken individually, the number of mobs running around is of little import. Melee combatants will still only attack one mob at a time. Mages (for the most part) focus on one mob at a time. The same goes for Warlocks. Individually, all of these classes will target one mob, kill it, and move on to the next. That's not really any different to having a single mob at a time except that they might take more damage during the combat. However, for Priests, AoE-using Mages and Warlocks, and healer Druids, more mobs often means more pain.

For a Priest or Druid, every defensive spell should be treated as an AoE spell. All heal spells, shields included, cause threat upon every mob in the area. This means that if any single mob (but usually groups of mobs) does not have a reason to focus attacks on someone else, the smallest healing spell will cause that mob to turn and attack the caster. To this end, the Priest healing spells are no different than a Mage or Warlock's AoE nukes and they should be treated as such. Fortunately, Priests have one "out." Fade allows a Priest to reduce the threat against him/her and make the mobs stop attacking. However, you generally only get one use of that during a fight, so it's not something that should be relied upon; it's more of a panic button in case things go horribly wrong.

-----------------------------------
Tactic that often doesn't work: Focus on one mob at a time

From what I have seen, usually people like the idea of focusing on a single mob out of a group at a time. This allows them to pool their damage and kill that monster quicker, reducing the amount of damage they are taking. Superficially, it would make sense that this would benefit a healer class since they don't have to heal as much. However, in practice, this is usually the #1 reason why my priest gets killed in battle.

Focusing on one mob at a time means that a wise Priest or Druid will be MUCH less likely to heal during battle. The second you cast a healing spell, every non-engaged mob will turn and attack the caster. For Priests, this means you can really only cast a single healing spell until such time as they have killed all but one mob (then the Priest casts Fade to get out of the attacks). Druids, however, as far as I know have no comparable spell to Fade (though I might be wrong since I haven't played one past level 10) and so would be completely out of luck and unable to heal AT ALL or face a good chance of dying.

Last night, several of us went into the Stockades. Throughout the ordeal, Refridgerator (playing his Druid) and I (playing my Priest) died several times in situations that should have been well within our group's control. The problem was that the three melee combatants of our group were attacking a single mob. Thus, every time either of we healers cast a protection spell, the other 2-3 mobs immediately turned and attacked us, often killing us. The problem with this approach was particularly apparent when we engaged Hamhock and had to initially face 3 mobs (Hamhock and 2 croonies). All three meleers engaged Hamhock, killing him and bringing another 2 mobs. The Druid had died before Hamhock went down (since he tried to heal someone and got attacked by the other two) and my Priest died shortly thereafter when I had everything turn and attack me for casting a healing spell followed by a shield.

Usually, this lack of healing means that there's a good chance the melee combatants, themselves, will fall in battle and usually they then whine, "Why didn't you heal me! You were at full mana!" to the healers. Last night, no one complained, but it was true that, generally, shortly after the healers fell, so did the meleers (unless they were able to escape due to being a very high level).

Obviously, this is a bad situation, but is there a solution?

-----------------------------------
A better tactic: Engage every mob

A much better way to approach a multi-mob group when you've got a healer class available is to make sure that every mob is either taken out of combat or having threat generated by some other class. In simplest terms, this means that if you've got a Warrior, a Paladin and a Rogue in your group vs. 3 mobs, have each character engage a different mob. This means that you won't be able to quickly kill one of the mobs to get the odds more in your favor, but it also means that your healer can cast all of the spells he/she wants and keep you at full life through the entire encounter.

However, engaging a mob doesn't necessarily mean in melee combat. Really, I just mean that each mob needs to be accounted for. Mages are particularly good at this, being able to Polymorph mobs or cast Frost Nova to temporarily delay fighting a given mob. Warriors are perhaps the best at this, though, being able to taunt entire groups of mobs, keeping them from turning and attacking the healer. Plus, Warriors have the best defense in the game (generally) and so are able to take the abuse best. About a week ago, I entered the Deadmines with my Warrior, TheDragoon, with a group of a Rogue, a Priest, 2 Mages and me. Up until the battle with Van Cleef, we had absolutely no problems whatsoever since I was able to taunt all mobs we faced and keep the casters from getting targetted. Everything went great until we reached Van Cleef and, rather than target his minions, the mages started unloading on Eddie, himself. When he spawned more mobs toward the end of his life, it was too much for my then level 20 Warrior and I couldn't keep them all taunted and everything fell apart with the Priest dying, followed shortly thereafter by me and finally the rest of the group. But up until then, things went great.

But an even better example is the group that we took into the Deadmines last night, thoroughly destroying everything in our path to get Bolty his victory. In just about every case, the Warrior and both Rogues would engage different mobs, allowing me to get off my healing spells without fear of retribution. In particular, against Mr. Smite and Van Cleef, himself, the melee combatants quickly engaged every mob, allowing Bolty to unload on the minions first and then finally on the bosses, themselves while I kept everyone healed. Van Cleef, himself, was somewhat of a joke. At the end of the fight, my Priest had more than half of her mana left since things had gone so well. No one even came CLOSE to dying against Van Cleef. Every mob was accounted for and we took them down one by one.

-----------------------------------
The Big Finish

If you are playing a non-healer and you find that your healers keep dying, you should probably re-evaluate your tactics. Most likely, mobs just aren't getting accounted for and so the healers are getting annihilated when they try to keep you or others alive. In every instance I've played, the good groups protect their healers and are usually successful. The not-so-good groups tend to attack either without a plan or simply don't bother to engage every mob and soon find themselves stranded without a healer.

Protect your healers and they will protect you. :)
-TheDragoon
Reply
#2
Quote:Throughout the ordeal, Refrigerator (playing his Druid)
:D

Quote:Druids, however, as far as I know have no comparable spell to Fade (though I might be wrong since I haven't played one past level 10) and so would be completely out of luck and unable to heal AT ALL or face a good chance of dying.

Well, I think we get an ability called "Cower" that lowers our threat a small amount. But, we only get it right before level 30, and it's only used in cat form. <_<
Reply
#3
I agree in practice with the idea of engaging every mob with a caveat. As a warrior when a bad pull such as what you described happens it is my job to tag each mob and taunt them to get their attention. I will then switch back to the most deadly opponent and focus on him only switching to the other two to keep the taunt up. There is no reason, if I'm doing my job correctly as the tank, to have a priest die on my watch.

Things become harder when you are playing a paladin as your main tank in a group. Again, it is the paladin's main job to maintain aggro in a situation like that. The main ways to do this is through the free cast crusader strike and to HEAL the Priest/druid or mage. There are also a couple of seals that assist the paladin in maintaining aggro and should be used in dire cases such as the Hamhock pull.

A rogue shouldn't be required to tank but can also be used to pull aggro away from a priest with their superior DPS.

It sounds like you've had some bad players in your party TD. I should also point out that in higher level instances the plan of dividing to conquer (ie each player try to solo an elite mob so the priest, etc can heal) is the quick route to a dirt nap. Once the priest and druid run outta mana before the mobs are killed the whole party is going south in a hurry.

Edit: As far as last night with engaging different mobs that worked better in our case because of the number of levels we all had on our opponents. I think Bolty was the smallest and he was 2 to 3 levels higher than the mobs we faced. I concentrated on Smite after pulling the stealthed mobs because I knew they would stay on me with Taunt.

Edit 2: I see where you're going to with this TheDragoon - just wanted to clarify that I think the problem has more to do with people not knowing how their classes can maintian aggro and how to work as a team in keeping the cloth/leather wearers safe.
Reply
#4
Quote:As a warrior when a bad pull such as what you described happens it is my job to tag each mob and taunt them to get their attention. I will then switch back to the most deadly opponent and focus on him only switching to the other two to keep the taunt up.
Yeah, that's what I was basically trying to say about Warriors. They can do a really good job of tying up multiple mobs via Taunt but of course they're going to concentrate most of their effort on the most deadly. :)

Quote:I see where you're going to with this TheDragoon - just wanted to clarify that I think the problem has more to do with people not knowing how their classes can maintian aggro and how to work as a team in keeping the cloth/leather wearers safe.
I'd say that's part of it, but the other main point was situational awareness. If not all mobs are accounted for in some way (be it taunting, sap, polymorph, etc.) then they'll end up attacking the healer the second he/she tries to cast even the smallest of heals. Basically, people need to have a plan for engaging the number of things they need to. If not, the first healing spell paints a big red bullseye on the caster. :)

Quote:It sounds like you've had some bad players in your party TD.
Some have just been bad. But others I'm sure are good players but they just weren't thinking.

Quote:I should also point out that in higher level instances the plan of dividing to conquer (ie each player try to solo an elite mob so the priest, etc can heal) is the quick route to a dirt nap.
Unfortunately, since I've split my time between servers and characters I've only seen the instances up through Gnomeregan. Therefore, my concrete examples only really ncecessarily pertain to those instances that I've played.

But even in upper level instances, doesn't the party have some way to lock down (so to speak) the mobs so that they don't go butcher the healers when they cast? If not, then perhaps that's one reason why there are so few Priest players around. ;)
-TheDragoon
Reply
#5
TheDragoon,Jul 30 2004, 03:04 PM Wrote:I'd say that's part of it, but the other main point was situational awareness.&nbsp; If not all mobs are accounted for in some way (be it taunting, sap, polymorph, etc.) then they'll end up attacking the healer the second he/she tries to cast even the smallest of heals.&nbsp; Basically, people need to have a plan for engaging the number of things they need to.&nbsp; If not, the first healing spell paints a big red bullseye on the caster.&nbsp; :)

Exactly. And this is why just about every group could use a secondary tank to assist with gaining the attention of mobs.

TheDragoon,Jul 30 2004, 03:04 PM Wrote:But even in upper level instances, doesn't the party have some way to lock down (so to speak) the mobs so that they don't go butcher the healers when they cast?&nbsp; If not, then perhaps that's one reason why there are so few Priest players around.&nbsp;&nbsp; ;)

Sure. They bring a good warrior along. ;) Additionally they should have a secondary tank in the form of a battle stance warrior or a pally who knows how to gain aggro with a combination of crusader strikes, holy strike, fist of justice, or judicious use of seals. :) A rogue can also attain this but really should very rarely be called upon to act as a tank. Much of a group's success really centers around composition, communication and setting up a good battleground prior to engaging. Bad pulls do happen though and the group needs to know when to cut and run. This usually means leaving the tank to die however and the group (and to a degree the tank) has to be ready to do so. I usually caution a group that I'm the tank for by saying "If I say run. Book it because I'm dropping fast!" :D
Reply
#6
As a point of perspective here, in DAoC, when facing potentially tough mobs, it was the job of at least one person other than the main tank to be the "peeler" and to "peel" those mobs off of whoever couldn't take it. Much like a healer, they have to watch health bars or stay zoomed out so that they can see the whole fight. As soon as a mob runs for the priest or caster, or anyone who can't probably handle a few hits, the peeler would be after the runaway mob. (And as a 2H Champion, it was often my job. I hit slow, but I hit hard and could taunt, and got aggro pretty reliably.)

In general, we all tried to focus on one mob (and aggro did work a little differently there as well). We just had this secondary job.

It sounds like that's the sort of thing you're looking for here.

A rogue or a dual wielding warrior is probably going to be the quickest at this. A warrior or a paladin are going to be able to soak up the damage better. I think any of them, played smartly, would be able to fill that peeling role.
One day, the Champions of the Fierce Bunny will ride again...<!--sizec--><!--/sizec-->
Reply
#7
Quote:I agree in practice with the idea of engaging every mob with a caveat. As a warrior when a bad pull such as what you described happens it is my job to tag each mob and taunt them to get their attention.

I've not yet assayed the warrior, so I'll throw myself on your mercy to clarify a point. I take it from your above statement that warriors have to taunt each enemy individually?

The reason I'm interested in this point is that bear-form druids have an AoE taunt, IIRC. It would be nice to have a reason to have a bear as a tank.
At first I thought, "Mind control satellites? No way!" But now I can't remember how we lived without them.
------
WoW PC's of significance
Vaimadarsa Pavis Hykim Jakaleel Odayla Odayla
Reply
#8
Hmmm... sort of right, but not quite. I think you've learned some wrong lessons along the way.

It is absolutely critical that the entire group focuses their damage-dealing abilities against one mob at a time. This is a no-brainer principle and is not something up for negotiation with me. If I'm in a group that's intentionally splitting damage among different mobs, I'll call it out and berate the group. If the group insists on continuing to do that, I'll either make a note never to party with those group members again or in extreme cases hearth out. The power of a group, players or mobs, goes up exponentially with each member added to it. This principle also works in reverse. That is, every time you eliminate one member of an opposing group, the power of the group gets significantly reduced.

However, the part of your post that is correct is that every mob should be accounted for from the start. In most groups I've been with (at least the good ones), prior to battles that will involve multiple mobs, the group will quickly check off how they're going to handle the situation. For example, "Sap the right geologist, sheep the left geologist, and focus on the boss." In this way, every mob is accounted for, but everyone's damage-dealing abilities are focused on one mob at a time. The same principle applies even when there are adds and things start breaking down. A mage can sheep the add, a warrior can taunt the add to him (and then go back to the original mob he was fighting), or a priest can shackle or even Mind Control the add. Every mob should be accounted for, but all damage-dealing should be focused on one mob.

Also, you seem to lightly dismiss Fade, and you shouldn't. If mobs start streaming toward your priest, because of a healing spell, then you should Fade so that they'll go back and attack other players (hopefully the warrior or someone with better armor). In my experience, the 15 seconds of Fade is more than enough time to allow the warrior to get a taunt off on any mobs that he or she didn't get a chance to taunt before. Fade is a good skill in that it allows the group some extra time to take into account all the mobs. If your warrior still doesn't taunt the rest of the mobs during that 15 seconds, you need to get a new warrior.

In addition, as I often tell my groupmates when they sometimes over compensate and try desperately to "save" me from a mob to the group's detriment, "I'm not that fragile." Heck, I've had group members who think it's a good idea to assign me a bodyguard, which is just silly. Priests can be pretty good tanks as long as they have mana. If I'm being attacked by one mob while the rest of the group is focused on another mob, I'll cast Renew and Holy Shield on me, continue to attack the same mob as my groupmates (using wand shots or staff hits to save mana), and just take the pounding for a bit while the group finishes off the mob they are working on.

Finally, with regard to target selection, there were some comments in this thread about focusing on the "most dangerous" mob. It all depends on what you mean by "most dangerous," though. Remember the principle about how group strength goes up exponentially with each member added. Rather than looking for the "most dangerous" mob, I tend to look for the mob who can be killed the fastest and focus on that mob first. The obvious case is killing spell casters who are both the "most dangerous" and "easiest to kill." But other examples are when a boss mob has bodyguards. I often prefer killing the bodyguards first, because they can be killed quickly, and then deal with the boss when he's alone. It depends on the situation, of course. If the bodyguards have nearly the same hit points as the boss or if they can be sapped and/or sheeped, then maybe going after the boss could be best.

More subtlely, though, are the situations you often see in the newer instances, like in Gnomeregan where mob groups can be a mix of elite and non-elite mobs. I always always always have my groups attack the non-elite mobs first. If it's a swarm of non-elite mobs (like gnome technicians), then aoe spells and bombs are used to try to weaken the mobs all at once. (Here, a priest should try to focus on keeping Holy Shield up on the group's mage). But once again, those characters without aoe attacks should focus on each non-elite mob one at a time. Once the easily killable non-elite mobs are out of the way, then the group can focus their damage-dealing abilities on the elite mobs one at a time.

So, yes, you are correct in that every mob should be taken into account, preferably before the battle has begun. However, all damage-dealing abilities of the group should be focused on one mob at a time.
Reply
#9
I don't think the examples I give were caused by "wrong lessons" that I've learned. Rather, I believe it to be the result of the groups that I've been in recently.

I thought about it some more, and I think most of the times I've experiences problems with this was in Warrior-less groups. Both your comments and many of Tal's comments assume that there will be a Warrior around to taunt. However, this isn't always the case (and hasn't been the case for me in the last couple days). Instead, I've been seeing a lot of Paladins trying to handle the role of the tank. The problems have been cropping up because the Paladins don't really have any way to draw aggro other than straight up attacking. Thus, in the end, when they all attacked a single target and left two more to come and attack me, we ended up with lots of bad situations. :) In those cases, it was best for the Paladins to spread out their damage (while the mage/rogue unloaded on one of the targets to do as you say and drop the mob quickly) and keep things off the rest of us.

But you are correct that in almost every case, we've managed to pool most of the actual damage being dealt out in order to cut down the number of mobs we were facing, but not at the expense of leaving attackers unaccounted for. :)

A couple other responses:

Quote:Also, you seem to lightly dismiss Fade, and you shouldn't.
Well, it must have just been how I wrote it. I use Fade all of the time and it helps tremendously. However, it does have limits. It tends to only offset 1-3 heals worth of threat for me and so if that's not enough to last through the stage when things are less than certain, then people start dying...

Quote:If your warrior still doesn't taunt the rest of the mobs during that 15 seconds, you need to get a new warrior.
Again, it kind of assumes a Warrior in the party. Perhaps my argument is that it shouldn't be REQUIRED to have a Warrior and a Priest in the same group but I'll save those thoughts for the /suggest in game. :)

Quote:In addition, as I often tell my groupmates when they sometimes over compensate and try desperately to "save" me from a mob to the group's detriment, "I'm not that fragile." Heck, I've had group members who think it's a good idea to assign me a bodyguard, which is just silly. Priests can be pretty good tanks as long as they have mana.
I would agree to this to a certain extent. However, the times when I usually have problems with this is when the group is taking a beating and so I'll end up expending most of my mana healing up other group members. The added cost of keeping myself alive often leaves me dry for mana mid-way through the battle.

------------

As for your thoughts on target selection and Gnomeregan, I'd say you're dead on. :) If the Lurker Lounge adopts this game, when it comes out, I think we should put together a FAQ for dealing with combat. There are a lot of people out there who this sort of thing isn't real clear to and could use some advice.
-TheDragoon
Reply
#10
There's a lot of good info in this thread. I don't normally party with people, and it's nice to see group dynamics thoroughly explained.

When I do happen to group up when I'm playing my mage, I always have a hard time controlling aggro. I can almost always instantly draw aggro from a mob with a Fireball, and doing so usually forces a melee character to run back to me to tank. I always feel like all I've done was interrupt the ongoing battle. I worry that the other party members are thinking "Great, now I've got to save that stupid mage's ass yet again". It's not that I can't fend for myself though, a combination of Frost Bolt, Fireball, Fire Blast, and Frost Nova means I can kill pretty much anything one-on-one, elite mob or no.

I suppose I could always use lesser spells (Frost Bolt, lower level Fireball), but limiting my damage potential seems a bit silly. If I can't deal maximum damage, then what's the point of me being there?

I guess what I'm looking for is some pointers on filling the mage role in a group. Should I hold back to not draw aggro, or just go all out and aggro be damned?
Reply
#11
Tactics for a Mage can vary wildly depending upon the group you're in. Ideally, you will party with a Warrior who likes nothing better than to taunt like crazy and let you unload. In this case, you can pretty confidently throw around your strongest spells assuming that things will be taken care of. When I took my Warrior in against Van Cleef in a party with two mages and a rogue, I was basically pressing the button for taunt almost constantly. However, despite all of them dealing out damage as quickly as they could, I kept aggro the entire time. So, at least at that level, it can be done. :)

The tougher situation is when you have a non-Warrior trying to tank (or a Warrior who refuses to use Defensive Stance). In this situation, I think you'll pretty much have to accept the fact that the mob is going to come after you and get up closer to the tanks. Start unloading from close by to the meleers. When the mob gets close, use Frost Nova to lock the mob down and back away. This will keep the mob from moving around (making the tanks less likely to say "Great, now I've got to save that stupid mage's ass yet again") and at least make it seem like they're holding aggro.

If they get angry at you over that, then I would say ask them what exactly they want you to do, instead. Most likely, they'll have no answer and you can continue, frustrated tank or not. ;) But for the most part, I don't think you'll find too many people upset because you're killing things too fast.

This is mostly from what I've seen, however, so you might want to listen to a more experience Mage over my musings, though. :)
-TheDragoon
Reply
#12
Interesting. If I can ever find someone to party with me, I'll have to try that out.

But doesn't "mob" mean multiple monsters? You seem to be using "mob" to refer to single monsters - it's somewhat confusing, IMO.
ArrayPaladins were not meant to sit in the back of the raid staring at health bars all day, spamming heals and listening to eight different classes whine about buffs.[/quote]
The original Heavy Metal Cow™. USDA inspected, FDA approved.
Reply
#13
Hi,

Back in the Good Old Days, a "mob" was a "mobile object" -- usually meaning a critter that would attack you, although it could be a critter that would only attack if attacked (e.g., a shopkeeper). But, as you point out, "mob" has an even older meaning. So we end up with the possibility of a "mob of mobs" -- ack!

I've been trying to wean myself off of the MUSH/MUDD "mob" usage because of the confusion that sometimes results. I've tried, with slight success, to use "critter" instead. But in WoW, critters are the fuzzy little things you might more likely pet than kill. "Monster" just doesn't seem right when dealing with humans/humanoids. When searching for the just right word to describe the multitude of things one attacks, it almost seems that English, with it's hundreds of thousands of (mostly unused) words needs yet one more :)

--Pete

How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?

Reply
#14
Thanks for the information, I didn't know where it came from. :) Personally, I would use "monster" as I generally have in most games that I've played, but it DOES seem a bit off when you're talking about something that is generally a humanoid or animal of some variety. Just about every time I write "mob" I have to first stop myself from writing "monster."

We need some better vocabularly, I think. B)
-TheDragoon
Reply
#15
How about "creatin" from the pre-MUD period when it was used by the programers that worked on the first adventure games like Adventure or Zork.
Reply
#16
I *think* you have to taunt each individually in WoW. Since its always been of paramount importance to keep the cloth and leather set healthy I've not felt comfortable in testing if the Warriors Taunt is a AOE or not. :)
Reply
#17
Ruvanal,Jul 30 2004, 08:53 PM Wrote:How about "creatin" from the pre-MUD period when it was used by the programers that worked on the first adventure games like Adventure or Zork.
I love these 404 errors. :)
Reply
#18
Hi,

I don't know which is scarier, that that version follows the original maps or that I still have a ring binder with those maps in it :)

Graphics? We don't need no stinkin' graphics!

--Pete

How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?

Reply
#19
What Mongo said was right. He also mentioned Mind Control, which you didn't, so I don't know if you have it yet. But if you use it, but it can be ver yuseful, especially if you have 2 priests or a secondary healer. MC one mob, use it to occupy another mob, and you just freed up 2 mobs for the price of one group member. It only works on humanoids, but since almost every instance is mainly humanoids, it almost always can be used (and if not, odds are you can use shackle undead =)
Reply
#20
In war3 they called the monsters you attacked for xp "creeps" but unfortunatly this term hasnt carried over to wow.
Signatures suck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)