Group Tactics [Archive] - Wizards Community

Group Tactics [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Phoenix Knight
12-27-05, 11:50 AM I am interesting in creating or finding rules that will help a party fight more cohesively. My group tends to lack in that area. I want a way to clearly illustrate the rewards of teamwork.

I want party unity and coheision to be a serious theme for this campaign (they're basically a military unit), and they have struggled with some battles due to no one really coordinating.

Some ideas I have already collected include Aid Another (including the improved aiding rules from Complete Adventurer), and Teamwork Benefits in Heroes of Battle.

I'd also like some other kinds of options, that wouldn't upset the rules too much, and I'd appreciate suggestions.

I was thinking of some kind of back-to-back option for when facing superior numbers. Just standing that way can prevent flanking on one side, but really, when you see people do that, they turn simultaneously to prevent being flanked on any side.
What about some kind of rule that allowed characters to coordinate their 5-foot steps and take them on an ally's turn if they are next to each other?
I'm still not sure this would solve the problem them. Attackers could still get on either side of a particular character due to the constraints of the battle mat.

Does anyone have any other ideas?
00_Whupass
12-27-05, 01:55 PM Well, how effective are your players when they're not working together? How challenging are the encounters they're going up against? Is your DM style skewing the outcomes of encounters in the PCs favors?

These are the first questions to ask here since the way the system is designed an uncohesive party will be far less sucessful than a cohesive party almost automatically. That is unless you're failing to challenge them or going to easy on them and adjudicating the rules with a PC friendly bais. This last issue often comes up when DMs don't play thier monsters and NPCs as living breathing creatures with an agenda of thier own and tactics commensurate to their intelligence scores. Do you NPCs ever Trip or Disarm the PCs, or Sunder the PCs equipment, these are things that are not just for PCs but I've often seen DMs who never use them. Do you're NPCs have self preservational instincts, do they use cover, retreat when their loosing, set up ambushes or traps, call for backup, these are pretty tactics when losing a fight but many DMs I've seen just have the NPCs stand their hacking away without regard for their own health.

If you are adjudicating the game fairly and roleplaying your PCs opponents appropriately then the effects of your party's chaotic nature should already be appearent. Perhaps one or more PCs have made a roleplaying decsion to play the obstinant crybaby, or the stoic loner. If the other players are ok with this and accept that it will be a drain on the party and make combat more challenging but potentially enrich the roleplaying experience, then you don't need to worry about it. If this is creating a problem between the party members or causing too many distractions at the game table in the form or inter-player bickering, then you do need to do something about it.

As far as mechanical considerations for rewarding cooperation, you've already hit the big ones: Aid Another, and Teamwork benefits. There are a few teamwork benefits in the DMG2 in addition to those in Heroes of Battle. Another consideration that I've thought about instituting that I was surprised they didn't have in Heroes of Battle is [Teamwork] Feats, where if more than one character have said feat and work together the receive the benefits. Of course you'd have to write them up yourself and like any other homebrew feat test them for balance, but their is fertile ground for such feats. I'm thinking something like Artillery Crew could be good,

Artillery Crew
Prerequisites: Profession (Seige Engineer) 5 ranks, Proficiency (any Seige Engine)
Benefit: If two or more characters with this feat are crewing a seige engine with which they are proficient, they recieve at +2 teamwork bonus to Profession (Seige engineer) for each person on the crew with this feat.

This one is just off the top of my head, it hasn't been playtested and would seem to have more NPC applications than PC applications, I think it illustrates my point.
Phoenix Knight
12-27-05, 04:23 PM I am more looking for rules (existing or new) that can be pointed out to players to help them out of the rut, of "all I can do roll a d20 to attack."

In a prior campaign, the response to a high AC opponent, was for everyone to line up, and then whine when the non-fighters needed 19s or 20s. In the same situation, as a player, I tend to try aid another so I only have to hit AC 10...

I would like options I can present to the group to help remind them that they, in fact, have options.

Yes, my NPCs use tactics, including cover, bull rushes, ambushes, and all that other stuff. As far as disarm goes, I wasn't really trying to encourage PCs to try tactics that are valid as individual characters, so much as reward those that work together.

We don't really have inter-party bickering. There is some whining, on occasion, if the group gets wasted by low-level NPCs with tactics. This tends to happen often, as the party tactics involve everyone making their own strategy, worrying about only their own situation, and merely making straightfoward charges.

Foolish choices aside, I'd like to know of more options for helping coordination.

I will check out the DMG2.

I like the Artillery feat, though I don't thinkn it will come up in my group.

Group cohesion is encouraged by the existing rules in the sense that such a party is more likely to survive an encounter. I considered that obvious, and I would like to go beyond, providing rewards for specific actions of working together.
Phoenix Knight
12-27-05, 04:32 PM I thought about this mechanic, but I was worried it could prove too good:

If you stand back-to-back with an ally, you cannot be flanked.

Perhaps it needs tweaking.

What are other real-world group tactics that could be adapted to the rules?
Rolof
12-29-05, 12:41 PM I don't know if this has been duplicated in 3.5 or not, but in
2nd edition there was a book called Combat & Tactics that
had a lot of group-oriented fighting techniques that could
help a party. One was called 'wolf-pack'; in which the party
members would surround a single powerful foe, half of the
party attacks on one side, causing the foe to turn around to
face them, then the other half attacks with a bonus for back
attack, foe turns again, then the first half attacks, etc etc.
Makes the bad guy spin in circles, always getting hit in the
back, just like those National Geographic specials where a
pack of wolves is always biting some big moose in the back
of the ankles.

There was also a rule that if the party elected a leader who
gave orders and was 'the boss', at least during any combat,
the whole party got +2 on initiative. This was many years
ago, so I don't remember everything from it, but I think it
also had a rule for making a shield wall, which required at
least 2 or more fighters up in the front rank with shields,
the idea being that they held their shields together, I think
the benefit was that the whole party got +1 to AC as long
as nobody slipped past the shield wall. (Works best in halls
and narrow corridors, plus allows polearm users to work in
the back with little danger.)
Tacomannerism
12-29-05, 02:38 PM I thought about this mechanic, but I was worried it could prove too good:

If you stand back-to-back with an ally, you cannot be flanked.

Perhaps it needs tweaking.

What are other real-world group tactics that could be adapted to the rules?

back-to-back fighting would not prevent 2 people from being flanked by enemies from the left and right. You would need more than 4 people to form a circle of sorts... and even then, there's nothing to prevent a cunning rogue (or 3) from tumbling into the center of the bunch, right?
Phoenix Knight
12-29-05, 03:24 PM Rolof, that was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, thanks. Let me know if you remember more of them.

back-to-back fighting would not prevent 2 people from being flanked by enemies from the left and right. You would need more than 4 people to form a circle of sorts... and even then, there's nothing to prevent a cunning rogue (or 3) from tumbling into the center of the bunch, right?

Exactly. Hence the need for such a rule. IRL, the idea of standing back-to-back is that a person cannot really be out of your line of sight, because if he was, your buddy would be covering that area.

On the battlemat, however, it is difficult to replicate that because characters cannot occupy the same square, and thus leave sides exposed. Actually, I guess occupying the same square wouldn't solve that problem, either.

I'd like a rule that actually provides a benefit for characters fighting back to back. There's already a benefit for double-teaming (flanking), but little benefit for having a buddy when you are out numbered, other than there being more targets for your enemies.
Kuroi Kenshi
12-29-05, 04:55 PM Hello, I thought you might be interested in this thread. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=405224&page=1&pp=50) It has a host of ways for various classes to use their abilities together, within the current ruleset. It's organized alphabetically by class role and by the earliest level each combo is attained, so although the thread is large, I hope that navigating it shouldn't be too tough.
Tolby
12-29-05, 08:06 PM Some tactics to use that can be set into rules is shield walls. I think there are some good rules in heros of battle and Mini handbook that your players could benefit from. In heroes of battle there are "team" bonuses that help out all members of the team.

In the fighter splat book there was a feat that gave bonuses to hit if both flanking members had the feat.

lastly there is a column for tactics and tips on the D&D website. hit up the archives for some good advice
Phoenix Knight
12-30-05, 03:37 PM Kuroi Kenshi, the thread has some helpful ideas. Unfortunately, some of them didn't really apply, since I run Iron Heroes, where there are no magic items, and the spellcasting system doesn't use the traditional spells (nor is it anywhere near as powerful). The group has no spellcaster, currently.

Tolby, I've looked through Heroes of Battle and pulled everything related. I will also look in the Minis Handbook, I hadn't thought of that, thanks.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Phoenix Knight 12-27-05, 11:50 AM	I am interesting in creating or finding rules that will help a party fight more cohesively. My group tends to lack in that area. I want a way to clearly illustrate the rewards of teamwork. I want party unity and coheision to be a serious theme for this campaign (they're basically a military unit), and they have struggled with some battles due to no one really coordinating. Some ideas I have already collected include Aid Another (including the improved aiding rules from Complete Adventurer), and Teamwork Benefits in Heroes of Battle. I'd also like some other kinds of options, that wouldn't upset the rules too much, and I'd appreciate suggestions. I was thinking of some kind of back-to-back option for when facing superior numbers. Just standing that way can prevent flanking on one side, but really, when you see people do that, they turn simultaneously to prevent being flanked on any side. What about some kind of rule that allowed characters to coordinate their 5-foot steps and take them on an ally's turn if they are next to each other? I'm still not sure this would solve the problem them. Attackers could still get on either side of a particular character due to the constraints of the battle mat. Does anyone have any other ideas?
00_Whupass 12-27-05, 01:55 PM	Well, how effective are your players when they're not working together? How challenging are the encounters they're going up against? Is your DM style skewing the outcomes of encounters in the PCs favors? These are the first questions to ask here since the way the system is designed an uncohesive party will be far less sucessful than a cohesive party almost automatically. That is unless you're failing to challenge them or going to easy on them and adjudicating the rules with a PC friendly bais. This last issue often comes up when DMs don't play thier monsters and NPCs as living breathing creatures with an agenda of thier own and tactics commensurate to their intelligence scores. Do you NPCs ever Trip or Disarm the PCs, or Sunder the PCs equipment, these are things that are not just for PCs but I've often seen DMs who never use them. Do you're NPCs have self preservational instincts, do they use cover, retreat when their loosing, set up ambushes or traps, call for backup, these are pretty tactics when losing a fight but many DMs I've seen just have the NPCs stand their hacking away without regard for their own health. If you are adjudicating the game fairly and roleplaying your PCs opponents appropriately then the effects of your party's chaotic nature should already be appearent. Perhaps one or more PCs have made a roleplaying decsion to play the obstinant crybaby, or the stoic loner. If the other players are ok with this and accept that it will be a drain on the party and make combat more challenging but potentially enrich the roleplaying experience, then you don't need to worry about it. If this is creating a problem between the party members or causing too many distractions at the game table in the form or inter-player bickering, then you do need to do something about it. As far as mechanical considerations for rewarding cooperation, you've already hit the big ones: Aid Another, and Teamwork benefits. There are a few teamwork benefits in the DMG2 in addition to those in Heroes of Battle. Another consideration that I've thought about instituting that I was surprised they didn't have in Heroes of Battle is [Teamwork] Feats, where if more than one character have said feat and work together the receive the benefits. Of course you'd have to write them up yourself and like any other homebrew feat test them for balance, but their is fertile ground for such feats. I'm thinking something like Artillery Crew could be good, Artillery Crew Prerequisites: Profession (Seige Engineer) 5 ranks, Proficiency (any Seige Engine) Benefit: If two or more characters with this feat are crewing a seige engine with which they are proficient, they recieve at +2 teamwork bonus to Profession (Seige engineer) for each person on the crew with this feat. This one is just off the top of my head, it hasn't been playtested and would seem to have more NPC applications than PC applications, I think it illustrates my point.
Phoenix Knight 12-27-05, 04:23 PM	I am more looking for rules (existing or new) that can be pointed out to players to help them out of the rut, of "all I can do roll a d20 to attack." In a prior campaign, the response to a high AC opponent, was for everyone to line up, and then whine when the non-fighters needed 19s or 20s. In the same situation, as a player, I tend to try aid another so I only have to hit AC 10... I would like options I can present to the group to help remind them that they, in fact, have options. Yes, my NPCs use tactics, including cover, bull rushes, ambushes, and all that other stuff. As far as disarm goes, I wasn't really trying to encourage PCs to try tactics that are valid as individual characters, so much as reward those that work together. We don't really have inter-party bickering. There is some whining, on occasion, if the group gets wasted by low-level NPCs with tactics. This tends to happen often, as the party tactics involve everyone making their own strategy, worrying about only their own situation, and merely making straightfoward charges. Foolish choices aside, I'd like to know of more options for helping coordination. I will check out the DMG2. I like the Artillery feat, though I don't thinkn it will come up in my group. Group cohesion is encouraged by the existing rules in the sense that such a party is more likely to survive an encounter. I considered that obvious, and I would like to go beyond, providing rewards for specific actions of working together.
Phoenix Knight 12-27-05, 04:32 PM	I thought about this mechanic, but I was worried it could prove too good: If you stand back-to-back with an ally, you cannot be flanked. Perhaps it needs tweaking. What are other real-world group tactics that could be adapted to the rules?
Rolof 12-29-05, 12:41 PM	I don't know if this has been duplicated in 3.5 or not, but in 2nd edition there was a book called Combat & Tactics that had a lot of group-oriented fighting techniques that could help a party. One was called 'wolf-pack'; in which the party members would surround a single powerful foe, half of the party attacks on one side, causing the foe to turn around to face them, then the other half attacks with a bonus for back attack, foe turns again, then the first half attacks, etc etc. Makes the bad guy spin in circles, always getting hit in the back, just like those National Geographic specials where a pack of wolves is always biting some big moose in the back of the ankles. There was also a rule that if the party elected a leader who gave orders and was 'the boss', at least during any combat, the whole party got +2 on initiative. This was many years ago, so I don't remember everything from it, but I think it also had a rule for making a shield wall, which required at least 2 or more fighters up in the front rank with shields, the idea being that they held their shields together, I think the benefit was that the whole party got +1 to AC as long as nobody slipped past the shield wall. (Works best in halls and narrow corridors, plus allows polearm users to work in the back with little danger.)
Tacomannerism 12-29-05, 02:38 PM	I thought about this mechanic, but I was worried it could prove too good: If you stand back-to-back with an ally, you cannot be flanked. Perhaps it needs tweaking. What are other real-world group tactics that could be adapted to the rules? back-to-back fighting would not prevent 2 people from being flanked by enemies from the left and right. You would need more than 4 people to form a circle of sorts... and even then, there's nothing to prevent a cunning rogue (or 3) from tumbling into the center of the bunch, right?
Phoenix Knight 12-29-05, 03:24 PM	Rolof, that was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, thanks. Let me know if you remember more of them. back-to-back fighting would not prevent 2 people from being flanked by enemies from the left and right. You would need more than 4 people to form a circle of sorts... and even then, there's nothing to prevent a cunning rogue (or 3) from tumbling into the center of the bunch, right? Exactly. Hence the need for such a rule. IRL, the idea of standing back-to-back is that a person cannot really be out of your line of sight, because if he was, your buddy would be covering that area. On the battlemat, however, it is difficult to replicate that because characters cannot occupy the same square, and thus leave sides exposed. Actually, I guess occupying the same square wouldn't solve that problem, either. I'd like a rule that actually provides a benefit for characters fighting back to back. There's already a benefit for double-teaming (flanking), but little benefit for having a buddy when you are out numbered, other than there being more targets for your enemies.
Kuroi Kenshi 12-29-05, 04:55 PM	Hello, I thought you might be interested in this thread. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=405224&page=1&pp=50) It has a host of ways for various classes to use their abilities together, within the current ruleset. It's organized alphabetically by class role and by the earliest level each combo is attained, so although the thread is large, I hope that navigating it shouldn't be too tough.
Tolby 12-29-05, 08:06 PM	Some tactics to use that can be set into rules is shield walls. I think there are some good rules in heros of battle and Mini handbook that your players could benefit from. In heroes of battle there are "team" bonuses that help out all members of the team. In the fighter splat book there was a feat that gave bonuses to hit if both flanking members had the feat. lastly there is a column for tactics and tips on the D&D website. hit up the archives for some good advice
Phoenix Knight 12-30-05, 03:37 PM	Kuroi Kenshi, the thread has some helpful ideas. Unfortunately, some of them didn't really apply, since I run Iron Heroes, where there are no magic items, and the spellcasting system doesn't use the traditional spells (nor is it anywhere near as powerful). The group has no spellcaster, currently. Tolby, I've looked through Heroes of Battle and pulled everything related. I will also look in the Minis Handbook, I hadn't thought of that, thanks.