Adopting play for Combat Strategy

As a long time DM of 2ED I have been looking at interest on varied opinions of the new 5E game. One of the key topics of discussion is the rulings instead of rules attitude which I believe for an experienced DM is a breath of fresh air. One of the area that has come up in the 2ED game was advantages players ( and to be fair NPC and intelligent monsters) could gain by historical tactics and strategy. I think 2ED system gave alot of flexibility for rewarding player innovation within combat process.
Shield Walls, Roman Tortoise, Spear Phalanx are examples. I have addressed this within the 2ED Cover and Concealment Rules.
A shield wall does not use a shield like a one on one combatent. It creates heavy cover. This also means that the players cannot attack like they would normally.
Cover and Concealment ModifiersTarget is:

Cover Concealment
25% -2 -1
50% -4 -2
75% -7 -3
90% -10 -4

These are significant bonus especially when applying additional higher ground adjustments, and despite penalties to attack, they also restrict an opponents ability to manoever especially in a tight corridor which can mitigate an attack penalty. Characters with no shield proficiencies can participate, albeit with an inability attack as a result. I tend to let any character regardless of class use any weapon (with appropriate non proficiency penalty) { To say nothing of potential theological issues some priests may encounter with their deities}. Holding monsters in a corridor and allowing missile and spell attacks over their heads, not only is effective it also has a devastating psychological effect on attackers. I have caused a morale check and rout in stronger force when the feel they are taking damage and "can't seem to inflict any".(Application -8 the same magical defence this time a tactical one)

This whole process gets even more interesting when 1HD Orcs face up to 5 or 6 level 7 characters, and use some significant tactics against them. Its amazing the damage 20 orcs with a couple of simple tactical advantages can make.
Don't think I ever saw my characters wade into a small band of orcs as though they had all imbided elixers of invulnerablity again after a couple of these encounters. It did seem to encourage more realistic roleplay after that.

Theoretically the use of some of these "tactics" would lend additional bonus if PC chose to use Non Weapon Profs to train in them. I certainly did apply this to some of more disciplined NPC mercenary troops. Like all my "house rules', these were documented and put in the house rule manual for players viewing after they were used and formulated. Many thanks to my players that helped review and assess the details during those post partum game balance analysis.

I am interested to see if others have used the "rulings" in a similar way?

I am interested to see if others have used the "rulings" in a similar way?

Click to expand...

First, this isn't a ruling; this is a rule. And, it is ennobled by becoming a rule rather than a ruling, because as a rule its application is repeatable. (Likewise, by being repeatable and predictable in application, we know it to be a rule.) You even say for yourself, "Like all my "house rules', these were documented and put in the house rule manual for players viewing after they were used and formulated." I know it is fashionable to call the rules at ones table 'rulings', as if ruling were superior to mere rules, but I'm not much a follower of fashion. Call this what it is (with pride) - a house rule. There is nothing especially admirable about 'rulings'. Indeed, bravo sir on converting mere rulings into a formal rules manual perusable by players and subject to discussion and even correction.

Second, absolutely I have done this sort of thing, and as early as 1e, and probably for much the same reasons you did. For me, I was impelled by the distinction in the 1e DMG between light and heavy infantry, and by the parallel distinction in Battlesystem. I wanted to know what it was - what skill or proficiency - distinguished the two and how long it took to train light infantry up to the discipline of heavy infantry. Also, at the time, I was still largely locked in the Gygaxian demographic model of most all NPCs - including soldiers - being 0th level. I wanted to know what maneuvers distinguished truly elite soldiers from their opponents if not their HD. This inspired the idea of shield walls as cover rules, and gaining bonuses in the attack owing to the weight of the formation. My rules were in flux right up until I gave up on 1e as a bad cause, thinking I could leverage some more realistic system to achieve the results I wanted.

I've seen a lot of similar rules over the years. They show up for example as a 'ruling' in the module 'Axe of the Dwarven Lords'. I call the idea in them a ruling rather than a rule, because it seems in the module to mostly exist as a DM tool for his pet NPCs with no expectation that PC's should even know that it is going on much less adopt the tactics for themselves. I also seem to remember an article in Dragon Magazine that had similar concepts and was one of the earlier forerunners of the 3e era concept of 'feats'.

My current rule set in based of 3.0e, and translates some of my ideas (and some new ones) from earlier editions into 3e by leveraging the Feat system and the skill system by creating a new skill - Tactics - that allows among other things making a check to fight effectively in formations. The system is too complex to cover in any depth here, but I think the general idea can be conveyed by showing a feat:

HEAVY INFANTRY [GENERAL, FIGHTER]
You are trained to perform as heavy infanty.
Prerequisite: Tactics 4 Ranks, Base attack bonus +1
Benefits: You are capable of performing the following tactics.
Legionaire: When formed in a shield wall, you gain a +2 bonus on reflex saves against spells or spell-like effects, and you are treated as possessing evasion. (If exposed to any effect which allows a reflex save for half damage, on a successful save the character takes no damage.)
Professional: You can take 10 on a tactics skill checks to fight in Close Formation, Fight in Ranks, Form a Phalanx, or Form a Shield Wall regardless of distractions.
Weight of the Formation: You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to hit for each rank of heavy infantry formed up behind you, to a maximum of a +3 bonus.

This whole process gets even more interesting when 1HD Orcs face up to 5 or 6 level 7 characters, and use some significant tactics against them. Its amazing the damage 20 orcs with a couple of simple tactical advantages can make.
Don't think I ever saw my characters wade into a small band of orcs as though they had all imbided elixers of invulnerablity again after a couple of these encounters. It did seem to encourage more realistic roleplay after that.

Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I very much oppose "Tucker's Kobolds" or "Skip's Goblins" and the general impulse to want to impress on players just how tough the weakest monsters in the game are. As a DM, one should always be on guard against one's ego getting in the way of their neutrality. If kobolds, goblins, or orcs don't go down hard to the heroes, how are they to know they've become heroes?

That said, 1e heavily punished isolated PCs being surrounded far more than any other edition I'm aware of (except perhaps mine). If an isolated PC was surrounded by orcs in 1e, he'd likely be in trouble, as 1e had complex facing rules that determined whether you could get the bonus from your shield and defend against attacks from your rear. Putting ones back up against a wall however meant that a mid-level fighter could slay orcs by the score. My own rules hybridize 3e's 'flanking' concept with 1e's 'facing' concept, by adding two new conditions 'encircled' and 'surrounded' that grant increasingly high advantage to the attacker. In my game, you definitely do not want to be 'surrounded' by foes having the Teamwork feat (such as by wolves or well trained infantry). As long as you don't take to extreme the idea of mooks taking on heroes using clever tactics, I'm on board. It's good to be able to have foes that 'stay' with the PC's, so that they have meaningful encounters with the same sort of foe at 1st level and again for many levels. Fifth edition seems to have that idea in spades, and is one of the things I like about it. But if mooks begin to enjoy outsized advantages that could not be enjoyed by the PC's (especially PC's of equivalent level), then I start to look at it askew.

That being said, I enjoy being able to craft 'mere' 1st level or 3rd level fighters with combinations of feats and 'mass' (to use the military term) to threaten PC's of considerably higher level than is expected, and I enjoy playing with the wargamish ideas in my head of how the different sorts of training and doctrine different cultures in my game might have (Heavy Infantry + Skill Focus (Tactics), Assault Trooper + Reckless Charge, Teamwork + Pack Tactics, Skirmisher + Point Blank Shot, etc.) might play out. I've long wanted to take the time to turn my RPG rules into a mass combat system, but alas, I've never had the time.

I'm also reminded how much tactical interest could be generated by the morale rules of 2e or BECMI. I found them however more suited to a war game than an RPG, as they made combat far too swingy and encounter design far too difficult. If morale collapsed, the PC's could rout vastly larger forces than themselves, multiplying their already considerable strength. But if morale did not collapse, this meant the PC's were facing vastly larger forces than you'd normally oppose characters of that level with. While I am all for naturalism in an RPG and think you can easily go too far in making everything balanced (the 'zones' of World of Warcraft ported to a PnP RPG), there is something to be said for balanced, tense encounters in encounter design. Morale makes that next to impossible, because it steals actions in mass from the NPCs but generally does not steal any from the PCs. This makes it more interesting to me as a system governing encounters between NPCs, and leave whether foes flee the PCs more up to 'rulings' rather than rules. Still, like facing, weapon versus armor bonuses, and casting time, it's one of those old school rules I'm tempted to bring back. I don't though, because somewhere along the line, I realized there is only so much complexity a system can have before it gets too fiddly to use in play.

Celebrim said:

First, this isn't a ruling; this is a rule. And, it is ennobled by becoming a rule rather than a ruling, because as a rule its application is repeatable. (Likewise, by being repeatable and predictable in application, we know it to be a rule.) You even say for yourself, "Like all my "house rules', these were documented and put in the house rule manual for players viewing after they were used and formulated." I know it is fashionable to call the rules at ones table 'rulings', as if ruling were superior to mere rules, but I'm not much a follower of fashion. Call this what it is (with pride) - a house rule. There is nothing especially admirable about 'rulings'. Indeed, bravo sir on converting mere rulings into a formal rules manual perusable by players and subject to discussion and even correction.

Second, absolutely I have done this sort of thing, and as early as 1e, and probably for much the same reasons you did. For me, I was impelled by the distinction in the 1e DMG between light and heavy infantry, and by the parallel distinction in Battlesystem. I wanted to know what it was - what skill or proficiency - distinguished the two and how long it took to train light infantry up to the discipline of heavy infantry. Also, at the time, I was still largely locked in the Gygaxian demographic model of most all NPCs - including soldiers - being 0th level. I wanted to know what maneuvers distinguished truly elite soldiers from their opponents if not their HD. This inspired the idea of shield walls as cover rules, and gaining bonuses in the attack owing to the weight of the formation. My rules were in flux right up until I gave up on 1e as a bad cause, thinking I could leverage some more realistic system to achieve the results I wanted.

I've seen a lot of similar rules over the years. They show up for example as a 'ruling' in the module 'Axe of the Dwarven Lords'. I call the idea in them a ruling rather than a rule, because it seems in the module to mostly exist as a DM tool for his pet NPCs with no expectation that PC's should even know that it is going on much less adopt the tactics for themselves. I also seem to remember an article in Dragon Magazine that had similar concepts and was one of the earlier forerunners of the 3e era concept of 'feats'.

My current rule set in based of 3.0e, and translates some of my ideas (and some new ones) from earlier editions into 3e by leveraging the Feat system and the skill system by creating a new skill - Tactics - that allows among other things making a check to fight effectively in formations. The system is too complex to cover in any depth here, but I think the general idea can be conveyed by showing a feat:

HEAVY INFANTRY [GENERAL, FIGHTER]
You are trained to perform as heavy infanty.
Prerequisite: Tactics 4 Ranks, Base attack bonus +1
Benefits: You are capable of performing the following tactics.
Legionaire: When formed in a shield wall, you gain a +2 bonus on reflex saves against spells or spell-like effects, and you are treated as possessing evasion. (If exposed to any effect which allows a reflex save for half damage, on a successful save the character takes no damage.)
Professional: You can take 10 on a tactics skill checks to fight in Close Formation, Fight in Ranks, Form a Phalanx, or Form a Shield Wall regardless of distractions.
Weight of the Formation: You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to hit for each rank of heavy infantry formed up behind you, to a maximum of a +3 bonus.



I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I very much oppose "Tucker's Kobolds" or "Skip's Goblins" and the general impulse to want to impress on players just how tough the weakest monsters in the game are. As a DM, one should always be on guard against one's ego getting in the way of their neutrality. If kobolds, goblins, or orcs don't go down hard to the heroes, how are they to know they've become heroes?

That said, 1e heavily punished isolated PCs being surrounded far more than any other edition I'm aware of (except perhaps mine). If an isolated PC was surrounded by orcs in 1e, he'd likely be in trouble, as 1e had complex facing rules that determined whether you could get the bonus from your shield and defend against attacks from your rear. Putting ones back up against a wall however meant that a mid-level fighter could slay orcs by the score. My own rules hybridize 3e's 'flanking' concept with 1e's 'facing' concept, by adding two new conditions 'encircled' and 'surrounded' that grant increasingly high advantage to the attacker. In my game, you definitely do not want to be 'surrounded' by foes having the Teamwork feat (such as by wolves or well trained infantry). As long as you don't take to extreme the idea of mooks taking on heroes using clever tactics, I'm on board. It's good to be able to have foes that 'stay' with the PC's, so that they have meaningful encounters with the same sort of foe at 1st level and again for many levels. Fifth edition seems to have that idea in spades, and is one of the things I like about it. But if mooks begin to enjoy outsized advantages that could not be enjoyed by the PC's (especially PC's of equivalent level), then I start to look at it askew.

That being said, I enjoy being able to craft 'mere' 1st level or 3rd level fighters with combinations of feats and 'mass' (to use the military term) to threaten PC's of considerably higher level than is expected, and I enjoy playing with the wargamish ideas in my head of how the different sorts of training and doctrine different cultures in my game might have (Heavy Infantry + Skill Focus (Tactics), Assault Trooper + Reckless Charge, Teamwork + Pack Tactics, Skirmisher + Point Blank Shot, etc.) might play out. I've long wanted to take the time to turn my RPG rules into a mass combat system, but alas, I've never had the time.

I'm also reminded how much tactical interest could be generated by the morale rules of 2e or BECMI. I found them however more suited to a war game than an RPG, as they made combat far too swingy and encounter design far too difficult. If morale collapsed, the PC's could rout vastly larger forces than themselves, multiplying their already considerable strength. But if morale did not collapse, this meant the PC's were facing vastly larger forces than you'd normally oppose characters of that level with. While I am all for naturalism in an RPG and think you can easily go too far in making everything balanced (the 'zones' of World of Warcraft ported to a PnP RPG), there is something to be said for balanced, tense encounters in encounter design. Morale makes that next to impossible, because it steals actions in mass from the NPCs but generally does not steal any from the PCs. This makes it more interesting to me as a system governing encounters between NPCs, and leave whether foes flee the PCs more up to 'rulings' rather than rules. Still, like facing, weapon versus armor bonuses, and casting time, it's one of those old school rules I'm tempted to bring back. I don't though, because somewhere along the line, I realized there is only so much complexity a system can have before it gets too fiddly to use in play.

Click to expand...

Great to have a critique from another experienced DM that has played with these ideas. I think I never found the whole morale process too complicated, probably due to very astute players. After they routed a stronger force, which I had originally designed to get the players to withdraw from, as It was meant to send them into another non combat encounter, they read up heavily on the morale rules. Knowing I was applying them they started targeting leaders, and using subterfuge. The level of heroic play increased, as they started to see their small group as potentially able to take on a larger force, the only difference is they planned and got cunning. The game got less about power game and more about working as a group.

I think a less imaganitive group of people would likely forced me into rebalancing the encounters. It did allow me to get have encounters that relied on PC identifying key areas, to overcome foes rather than the simple maths of numbers x stats = encounter level.

I admit the concept of feats brought in at 3e, always had me concerned, as what's good for players is also used by monsters. I liked that the players would try and innovate and confidently try it on in the game, knowing I would try and make it work within the game framework, whether there was current rules for it or not.

The old trying to make fantastical world logical and semi "predictable". I always found feat descriptions pushing logic away in favour of fantastical. Your use of feats for tactics however is quite inspired as it has that thread of logic I like in the game.

Sent from my HNT10-1615 using Tapatalk