So here's the deal, in my part we have 2 fighters, a druid, cleric, and sorcerer. The 2 fighters use dodge, mobility and spring attack as a way to make monsters advance on them and score attacks of opportunity using combat reflexes, essentially getting a free attack each round. Our group's story is that we are part of a military unit, and therein lies the problem. Our DM says that the fighters are not supposed to jump backward and give up ground from the enemies because they are soldiers and soldiers stand their ground. The DM has even said that if they don't stop fighting the way they do that she will dock xp, etc. However, D&D is about playing the character YOU want to play, and if their feats are that way, I say it's their choice. The two fighters have said that if they are forced into a role they don't want to be they will leave the game, but the DM won't budge. How can this situation be resolved mutually? In other words, what's a player to do?
You say that you are part of a military unit, right? Therefore, you most likely have a commander-in-charge (CIC) (often the warlord or healer). The CIC is the one who has the right to tell the Fighters when to pull back. Not the DM. The DM may say that soldiers stand their ground, but if the CIC says otherwise, the Fighters should obey the CIC.
If your DM wants your Fighters to stand their ground, and your Fighters don't want to, the DM is not in a position to decide whether or not the Fighters will stand still... Unless he can immobilize them or surround them with enemies, so they can't move.
If those two suggestions don't help, inform the DM of the most important rule in DnD (or at least in 4.0E): "The DM's primary task is to make sure the players are having fun." My definition of 'having fun' is not 'constantly being told what to do in any given situation'. The DM should give your PCs the freedom of choice. Your Fighters can pull back if they have to. Sometimes, it might even be smarter to pull back instead of just standing and swinging your sword randomly.
Hope you find a solution to your problem as soon as possible.
Small Rant
Being a soldier merely means that you serve in a military. The tactics you use would depend on a number of factors - numbers, available technology, terrain, your foe's capacities, etc. If your DM thinks soldiers are only limited to Greek phalanx formation fighting and nothing else, I'd say she ignorant of combat in general. If it's stupid and works, then it's not stupid.
And even if the fighter characters did serve in the military that heavily employed such tactics, they're not soldiers anymore. They are adventurers in a small party, not an army. They are no longer beholden to the tactics of their previous employers and are free to pursue their own styles. Besides that, small units require different tactics anyway. Leonadas fought off the Persians with 300. Not 5.
And even if the fighter characters did serve in the military that heavily employed such tactics, they're not soldiers anymore. They are adventurers in a small party, not an army. They are no longer beholden to the tactics of their previous employers and are free to pursue their own styles. Besides that, small units require different tactics anyway. Leonadas fought off the Persians with 300. Not 5.
If it's stupid and works, then it's not stupid.
This. THIIIIIIS. So epically this it's not even funny. Plus, like...12, Fireclave.
Having served in the Army, I can say with some certainty that there's no such thing as an "always-on" strategy. Advancing is a good strategy, sometimes it's just better to advance in a different direction.
The spiked chain, dodgy OA guy was one of the like two Fighter builds that was actually decently effective in 3.5, and combining that with low levels, means the fighters will be a dominating force on the field that can't be easily attacked. And then there's not one, but two characters like that, essentially the same mechanically.
--This of course assumes you guys are using reach weapons that can make OAs, because Dodge/Mobility/Spring Attack doesn't do all that much in terms of granting OAs with non-reach weapons, since it's the moving OUT of a square that triggers OAs.--
(The DM really should be involved with character creation btw.)
Of course, at about level 5 the world flips on its head and casters dominate everything, but since that's what people are used to, the semi-effective fighter still stands out.
Basically, I think your options are these:
1) The players appeal to the DM that they're not breaking any rules, and would prefer if their group could be thought of as more of an "elite unit" rather than rank-and-file soldiers off on their own. Seriously, Druids and Sorcerers probably aren't rank-and-file for most armies.
2) Same as 1, but one of the Fighters rebuilds his character to be a different kind of character. This directly relieves about half the perceived problem, and also I can't expect it to not get boring for the players either, if two PCs are effectively the same and they argue over magic gear and stuff.
3) Appease your DM, but require free rebuilding of the characters, since the DM is now declaring their entire purpose as invalid.
4) Very stubbornly persist in doing what you've been doing, even with XP penalties or increasingly "coincidental" combat situations, leading to everyone getting really angry.
5) Actively undermine the game at every chance and/or quit in a temper tantrum.
The likely "better" solutions are at the top.
That being the case, the DM probably does not know how to combat this particular combination. In regard to what you should do, have an open discussion with the DM, taking Kouk's first suggestion for a solution in mind. I have to agree with Kouk on this; Druids and Sorcerers are not typical soldiers.
Thank you very much for the feedback! I believe that the problem here is both the DMs inexperience and the monster's that she picks. For example, we have yet to fight an enemy caster, which would essentially make their current tactics futile. Also, the deal is that they are part of the military, not the rest of the party. I realized this after clarification with the DM. Therefore, would it be so hard, if the issue here is flavor and not rule bending, that the two fighters were part of a special forces unit that trained guirella tactics? Our next game session isn't for another couple of weeks, but I was hoping to resolve it before we play again, so again, thank you for your help and any other suggestions are appreciated!
i'll agree with the above posters:
a D&D party is NOT an army. some characters might have served before, but even me (a lowly level 1 expert in 3.5 terms) knows that no one tactic works in all occasions. sometimes you need to pull back a bit and let the enemy advance closer to you, rather then jump in his grill and stay there. while "stand and fight" is a... brave... method of fighting, another method is to have the enemy fight but under your conditions, your rules, effectively forcing him to play your game while you hold all the cards.
this is what those players are doing. they are forcing the enemy to play by their rules. they try to setup situations where the enemy can only react in a few ways: if they step in they get an attack of opportunity (which can be used to trip them and stop their attack period), if they step back they get charged/spring attacked. the enemy could go full defense, but the turn is wasted.
the GM needs to mix up his monsters a bit more. enemies with long reach (an ogre with a longspear has a 15 foot reach), ranged attackers (casters or archers/throwers), flying monsters (a gargoyle who can flyby attack, a griffon grappling and lifing the PC off the ground, an ogre mage shooting at a PC from above them), burrowing monsters (change a bulette's feats to give IT spring attack and it's a whole new ballgame for the land shark), incorporeal monsters (wraiths, ghosts, all require a magic weapon to be hit... at a 50% miss chance), ect... enemies who have unconventional methods of attacking themselves.
in the game of combat, smart tactics will almost always win over brute strenght or even larger numbers. and if there is one thing PCs do well, it's guerrilla tactics.
What's the worst that could happen (mechanically)?
1) The DM listens to the advice commonly bandied about here & always keeps the party at the same XP value or lv. And presumably writes things that are a suitable challenge to the party.
Hmm. Not seeing a real penalty....
2) I get docked x % and the rest of the party lvs up a bit faster than I do.
OK. In order to challenge the others, who now need more - alot more xp than I do to to advance, the monsters used become worth more to me than to them. End result? Yes, I'm still down a % off the total, but I'm also earning more points compartively.
All this does is result in the party advancing one session & then a session, maybe two, later I advance.
Oh no, what a deterance....
* Thought: The DM is docking for RP reasons though, not mechanics. So if it's RP she wants, & you can acrue penalties because of it, is it possible to gain bonuses for good RP??
If so, it might be possible to completely offset the penalties gained through one action with the bonus from another....
End result? DM does more math than really needed for the result gained. Not my problem as a player.
The thing that I WOULD worry about as a player (or at least consider)?
Ok, so the xp penalty is coming from a RP issue. Eventually the DM might come to realize that RP penalties can come in ALOT more forms than just points. All she'd have to do is pause for a moment & reflect upon Greek/Roman mythology for inspiration.
Afterall, let's say my fighter comes from a culture who practices a certain type of fighting technique because their god decrees it. Eventually, as I rise in power, my craven fighting style might well draw some divine ire....
Of course I think that'd make for interesting storytelling. I realize that I'm not in the majority with that thinking.
All she'd have to do is pause for a moment & reflect upon Greek/Roman mythology for inspiration. ... my craven fighting style might well draw some divine ire.
Roman history would be proper here, too.
Fabius was the general who had to deal with the aftermath of the disaster that was Cannae. His way to fight Hannibal was NOT to charge out onto another field of battle. Instead, he stayed in the hills, let Hannibal rampage across the plains (Hannibal had no siege gear, so he had to stay away from cities), and hassle his foraging parties.
Once this exchange occurred:
Hannibal - "If you are a great general, come and fight me."
Fabius - "If you are a great general, make me fight against my will."
I wonder what the original DM would do with a Tempest Fighter / Nerath Shock Trooper? These guys are SUPPOSED to keep moving around and between the enemy.
Thank you very much for the feedback! I believe that the problem here is both the DMs inexperience and the monster's that she picks. For example, we have yet to fight an enemy caster, which would essentially make their current tactics futile. Also, the deal is that they are part of the military, not the rest of the party. I realized this after clarification with the DM. Therefore, would it be so hard, if the issue here is flavor and not rule bending, that the two fighters were part of a special forces unit that trained guirella tactics? Our next game session isn't for another couple of weeks, but I was hoping to resolve it before we play again, so again, thank you for your help and any other suggestions are appreciated!
My suggestion is to get any experienced DM's in your group and talk to her about tactics and how to compensate for the players tactics. Even if it is one of the players in question. I know that I've had to man-up and help my current DM (his first time running a game, and he's doing pretty well, with a few exceptions) with a few tactical ideas. It helps the overall flavor of the game, and in your case will prevent hard feelings.
Just make sure she knows that not every combat encounter should employ tactics that will eliminate their advantage. Sure, an ice storm does enough individual hits that it'll take down our stoneskins, but not every spell caster we encounter should be employing them suddenly...
Eric the GreySo here's the deal, in my part we have 2 fighters, a druid, cleric, and sorcerer. The 2 fighters use dodge, mobility and spring attack as a way to make monsters advance on them and score attacks of opportunity using combat reflexes, essentially getting a free attack each round. Our group's story is that we are part of a military unit, and therein lies the problem. Our DM says that the fighters are not supposed to jump backward and give up ground from the enemies because they are soldiers and soldiers stand their ground. The DM has even said that if they don't stop fighting the way they do that she will dock xp, etc. However, D&D is about playing the character YOU want to play, and if their feats are that way, I say it's their choice. The two fighters have said that if they are forced into a role they don't want to be they will leave the game, but the DM won't budge. How can this situation be resolved mutually? In other words, what's a player to do?
Tell your DM to shut it, and your tactics are your tactics. That they work is probably the issue here, and the DM is just pissed that your crew won't hold still and take the pummeling set up for you.
T