Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 skeptic Aug 20, 2008 13:15:06	Tactics in D&D emerge largely from the rules themselves (even if 4E has cleaned itself of many of his ancestor’s futile simulatinonist artefacts) and from my first tries as a 4E DM, I must admit that I need to do something about my D&D tatical skills. The 4th chapter of the DMG does a basic job, but for a DM like me that has neither military background nor a deep experience in tactical boardgames, it's not enough. Understand me correctly, I really want to embrace the tactical nature of 4E when I play D&D, if I wanted a different experience, I would go for one of many Indie RPG books sitting on my bookshelf. That's why I'm asking WOTC to give me a tactical book written in the DM perspective.
#2 Alter_Boy Aug 20, 2008 14:22:06	Same here. For now, might I suggest using the DMG suggestion for encounter templates? The roles and levels suggested work out well IRL (or IRPGL, I guess :/)
#3 majin_mint Aug 20, 2008 22:10:21	What kind of tactics do you want to know? How tactically knowledgeable are your players? What monsters are you using? What is the makeup of the PC troupe? What kind of location do you have? How hard do you want to make the fight? Mostly tactical play is just practice, practice, practice. You can fudge it a bit either way with the setup though.
#4 Ventus_Frago Aug 22, 2008 10:38:21	Here's some basic tactics that will work for any monster grouping/encounter. Rule#1: Focus Fire. If you have 5 pc's vs 5 mobs have all the mobs attack the same character. One mob vs pc's have him always attack one PC. Rule#2: Pick the right terrain. Monsters have abilities like swamp walk and flight for a reason. Force the PC's to chase lizardmen in a swamp as a running fight. Using tables, narrow pathways, tall trees are terrain tools that both you and PC can use. Rule#3: Deny the enemy the ability to hit you. Remember almost every monster the PC's will fight in actuality have no idea they are there to die. They expect to live and will make every effort to do so. Stealth, Cover and Concealment, and movement are excellent tools to achieve this. When building encounters keep those three simple rules in mind. It should be just enough to make the PC's sweat and feel like they've earned the win.
#5 snshijuptr Aug 22, 2008 12:55:08	I prefer to use the MM for tactics. Using the sample encounters from the MM with the creatures built in tactics leads to some interesting fights, plus the stories make sense based on the built in knowledge rolls. From there I usually add in some interesting terrain like pillars, shadows, and traps based around countering what my players can do that my monsters cannot (e.g. pillars for melee monsters vs AoE players). Anyway, a book that reccomends stuff like this would be useful. In addition it could also include more of the sample encounters maybe incorporating different traps.
#6 habico Aug 22, 2008 15:28:02	Here's some basic tactics that will work for any monster grouping/encounter. Rule#1: Focus Fire. If you have 5 pc's vs 5 mobs have all the mobs attack the same character. One mob vs pc's have him always attack one PC. I disagree. Focus fire is metagaming at its very worst. Monsters don't know about hit-points or how many hits a pc can take. Plus what fun is watching your character go down in one round, especially if you didn't do anything. Worse still it is utterly absurd from a realism or cinematic pov. Picture elves lurking amongst the trees, they lay in wait as a group of dreaded somethings like pcs. The signal goes out and soon arrows are fired. Now do you picture. A) Arrows falling all around, people get hit and die. or B) Every Arrow lands in the lead figures chest. So I say spread out the damage. Make the rest of the party use their surges. Think of damage is the little gift that says "You're special PC!" when its not their turn. That said consider the nature of your monsters. Wolves, Gnolls, Hyenas I think would lean towards FF and flanking. Where Dragonborn I'd interpret as trying to go one on one.
#7 majin_mint Aug 22, 2008 17:29:32	I disagree. Focus fire is metagaming at its very worst. Monsters don't know about hit-points or how many hits a pc can take. Plus what fun is watching your character go down in one round, especially if you didn't do anything. In theory the PCs are not supposed to either, their players do but the characters themselves don't... I look at it this way, if the PCs metagame that way, then it is fair for sentient monsters and opponents to do so too. Also pack animals do tend to focus on and pick off the weak. Of course I let my PCs know in advance that if they start metagaming the heck out of combat then the monsters will too. :D Worse still it is utterly absurd from a realism or cinematic pov. Picture elves lurking amongst the trees, they lay in wait as a group of dreaded somethings like pcs. The signal goes out and soon arrows are fired. Now do you picture. A) Arrows falling all around, people get hit and die. or B) Every Arrow lands in the lead figures chest. It's situational, range is a luxury the monsters don't always have. You're right though, scenario A) is a lot better for this one. So I say spread out the damage. Make the rest of the party use their surges. Think of damage is the little gift that says "You're special PC!" when its not their turn. That said consider the nature of your monsters. Wolves, Gnolls, Hyenas I think would lean towards FF and flanking. Where Dragonborn I'd interpret as trying to go one on one. Wolves and Hyenas would spend time stalking and pick the weakest target to focus on with a few acting as distraction. Gnolls would probably just snipe the heck out of the poorly armored targets before engaging in melee...assuming a mixed weapon load anyways.
#8 Ventus_Frago Aug 26, 2008 11:49:39	I disagree. Focus fire is metagaming at its very worst. Monsters don't know about hit-points or how many hits a pc can take. Plus what fun is watching your character go down in one round, especially if you didn't do anything. Worse still it is utterly absurd from a realism or cinematic pov. Picture elves lurking amongst the trees, they lay in wait as a group of dreaded somethings like pcs. The signal goes out and soon arrows are fired. Now do you picture. A) Arrows falling all around, people get hit and die. or B) Every Arrow lands in the lead figures chest. Actually in real life, you are wrong. Every military text book you will review, read, or study will say the same thing. Focusing fire is innate. Besides his request was for tactics suggestions, not flair. For simple animals like wolves and lions, they don't need to take out the herd, just enough to eat. That is not metagaming, just a natural instinct to get what they want the most efficiently. If this is something that is instinctual in predators, how could it possibly be metagaming for fantasy monsters, the Alpha predators of their world? Cinematically how many times have you seen a heroic figure leading a charge being wiped out by a hail of bullets/arrows/blows. How many times cinematically have you seen a pack of dogs tear down a deer? Your argument is a straw man as it has no tactical context -- are there three elves shooting, or a hundred? Five people walking through the woods, or a hundred? cinematically you could add the nice lustre of fog rolling through the trees obscuring vision so only one person is visible as the arrow/s spring/s out of his/her chest, but that wasn't what the OP was asking, they asked for tactics.
#9 athzar Aug 26, 2008 12:01:09	I disagree. Focus fire is metagaming at its very worst. Monsters don't know about hit-points or how many hits a pc can take. Plus what fun is watching your character go down in one round, especially if you didn't do anything. Worse still it is utterly absurd from a realism or cinematic pov. Picture elves lurking amongst the trees, they lay in wait as a group of dreaded somethings like pcs. The signal goes out and soon arrows are fired. Now do you picture. A) Arrows falling all around, people get hit and die. or B) Every Arrow lands in the lead figures chest. So I say spread out the damage. Make the rest of the party use their surges. Think of damage is the little gift that says "You're special PC!" when its not their turn. That said consider the nature of your monsters. Wolves, Gnolls, Hyenas I think would lean towards FF and flanking. Where Dragonborn I'd interpret as trying to go one on one. From a cinematic view, no, it isn't very exciting usually. But at the same time, if the monsters launch a coordinated attack on the lead character, it can be pretty epic if the entire party surrounds him, somebody starts healing, and they start working as a defensive unit. Same thing in reverse: if a monster goes down really fast, the rest get enraged and angry. But it certainly isn't metagaming, as long as you consider things like surprise attacks & flanking not-metagaming. Just look at it logically: "If we all attack the same monster, he'll die faster, which means it's one less monster attacking us!". It'd be metagaming if a player said "That monster has 45 HP; we can kill it in one round".
#10 strayth Aug 26, 2008 12:31:58	Gotta say I don't really need any tactical help from WotC. There are some great pointers in this thread though, and you can go elsewhere to stretch your grasp over combat. If you're in college I'll definitely recommend a course in logic / protocol. It's strange how much this can help you think about things, particularly tasks. Hopefully anyone else here who's taken one of these can agree. Secondly, try out a few strategy games. For mass armies I actually recommend the Total War series of games on the PC: these tend to be some of the most realistic strategy games out there. For non-massive armies, perhaps look at a TRPG (tactical RPG), for example, Final Fantasy Tactics. This isn't staunch realism but it does train your mind to think about things like elevation, denying strike access or minimizing your chances of being struck, etc. Also, really plan out some of these battles. Really get into your monster; consider him your character, do what it would need to do to survive and get rid of his enemies (your players). Some players get whiney when a foe actually thinks for itself more than just 'hit / use ability' but when they can outsmart or overcome him, it pays off.
#11 habico Aug 27, 2008 16:23:56	Actually in real life, you are wrong. Every military text book you will review, read, or study will say the same thing. Focusing fire is innate. Besides his request was for tactics suggestions, not flair. For simple animals like wolves and lions, they don't need to take out the herd, just enough to eat. That is not metagaming, just a natural instinct to get what they want the most efficiently. If this is something that is instinctual in predators, how could it possibly be metagaming for fantasy monsters, the Alpha predators of their world? Cinematically how many times have you seen a heroic figure leading a charge being wiped out by a hail of bullets/arrows/blows. How many times cinematically have you seen a pack of dogs tear down a deer? Your argument is a straw man as it has no tactical context -- are there three elves shooting, or a hundred? Five people walking through the woods, or a hundred? cinematically you could add the nice lustre of fog rolling through the trees obscuring vision so only one person is visible as the arrow/s spring/s out of his/her chest, but that wasn't what the OP was asking, they asked for tactics. Doesn't modern military doctrine lean towards the application of suppressive fire? I'm not all that familiar with military matters, but logically if I have 8 men firing on one target, it leaves the others plenty of room do shoot at you. It seems like a waste of time, ammo etc. I pointed out a situation that conveyed my opinion on the matter. The statement "Focus fire is bad" isn't meant to be an absolute. I do believe I mentioned that you should consider the nature of your enemy. So dogs have pack tactics, hobgoblins will work together on a target and so on and so forth. I am saying is if you are fighting for example a horde of zombies and they ignore all targets but one guy, when there are other targets right next to the primary target. It is a bit jarring so don't do that.
#12 the8bitdeity Aug 27, 2008 18:05:57	Doesn't modern military doctrine lean towards the application of suppressive fire? I'm not all that familiar with military matters, but logically if I have 8 men firing on one target, it leaves the others plenty of room do shoot at you. It seems like a waste of time, ammo etc. Suppressive fire is beneficial because it's meant to at the very least wound / maim / slow down enemies. It's inaccurate, but getting hit with just a single bullet can be very effective in preventing you from hurting me. D&D doesn't have this concept because of the hit point system. You'd need to make a power that was like hit: damage + status effects to help make a usable suppressive fire mechanism.
#13 phoenixblackrose Aug 28, 2008 4:22:50	Suppressive fire is beneficial because it's meant to at the very least wound / maim / slow down enemies. It's inaccurate, but getting hit with just a single bullet can be very effective in preventing you from hurting me. D&D doesn't have this concept because of the hit point system. You'd need to make a power that was like hit: damage + status effects to help make a usable suppressive fire mechanism. First comparing modern warfare against D&D is like comparing modern warfare to mideval warfare. Modern warfare is about suppresive fire because soldiers move in defined units, ALWAYS use different stance (Standing/crouched/prone), and move in a spread out manner to prevent focus firing, minimize casualties/injuries due to explosive weaponry. Mideval warfare you gained more by swarming/focus firing enemies. In melee 2v1 is greater than 1v1-hence why there is a Flanking bonus in D&D when a creature is engaged by two or more targets in melee. It was also better to keep soldiers closer together to keep your enemies from penetrating too deeply into your ranks. You can't compare them effectively because the tactics were suited to the weapons at the time. Cover/concealment is by far more important in modern day combat than it was in the Dark Ages. So based on that alone, swarm tactics are less of metagaming, more of effective strategy. I don't know why you're arguing that FF is metagaming when the whole point of the defender role is to keep the creatures focusing on him/her to let the strikers/controllers bring their numbers down. And I can't argue against FF at all. You wouldn't put a lone soldier against a tank. And this is a game where dropping your enemies rapidly isn't possible. Maybe if there were more ways besides a DMs house rules to render an enemy "helpless" for max damage, but this isn't like Modern where there's mass damage, and it almost never changes.
#14 Archus_Forix Aug 28, 2008 22:18:31	hmm, well the thing with medieval warfare is that for starters, the different troop types had different roles, and secondly, the group is not an army, it is a little group of people. At best it could be considered a geurella group (sp?). Secondly, the tactics used will come from the nature of the roles the PCs' classes come from. In general, though, I would recommend that you get your priorities straight (i.e. go for the leader of the group first (not leader as in role, but the head of the mob if there is one). Good tactics are dependant on the situations that are presented. Let us say that you have all 4 roles defined, and you are against all melee troops. A good way is to keep your range and let the controllers/strikers drop down as many as they can from range, and then when the troops start to close in, the defender and striker goes in, with the leader in between the defender & striker and the controller. From there, you need to get the controller to pelt the troops, and the leader buffing the group and if needs be, go in for a battle or two and pull out again, making sure the balance and range are maintained. Rinse and repeat. If you are going against all ranged, then you need to get the Defender and Leader in straight away, the striker going for ranged and closing in to the melee, and the controller picking out the ones at the back (if he can). If you have a mixed, then you need to take out the ranged first, because they will continue to pelt you even if you are in melee. If the DM is smart, he will put the ranged behind the melee troops, effectively creating a barrier. Get the strikers and controllers to take out the ranged ASAP, and then get the controller to take out the melee flanks, and the striker to rush in to help the defender and leader. But, this is when you need to set priorities, and maybe you need to focus on one enemy at a time, pull back, rush in etc. This is where practice will come in! Hope that helps for general field tactics against physical enemies.
#15 Fenian Aug 28, 2008 22:44:51	Read the Art of War by Sun Tzu - pretty sure you can find it online for free (legally). It is simply written and outlines copncepts of battle that apply equally to the real world and to the D&D table. The rest of what i have to say is what i would consider a good plan for really expanding on your tactical knowledge but for the basics you cant get past Art of War If that peaks your interest you could be brave and try Clausewitz's (prolly spelt that wrong) 'On War' which I also find to be excellent but significantly heavier read, and perhaps not quite as broadly applicable. Memoirs written from the point of generals and fighting men alike can also be very informative. I personally found 'Lost Victories: Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General' by Erich Von Manstein to be very intersting from a tactics point of view and fascinating also because it tells the story from someone who had both success and defeat in the field of battle - normally the victors viewpoint is all thats presented. While im on the topic of good books for DMs to read i cant reccomend 'the Prince' highly enough by Niccolo Machiavelli nothign to do wioth tactics but fabntastic for thinkign up evil pl;ots involving the nobility...