D&D 5E Tactics in combat

[CapnZapp]

The applicability of focused fire doesn't depend on the game being turn based. Almost any time a creature does not suffer loss of offensive effectiveness by being wounded but not killed, focused fire is going to be a good tactic. The only exception that I can think of right off the top is if attacks are simultaneous (or effectively so) and there is a good probability of one-shotting opponents.

Though the fact it applies to non-turn based games does not invalidate his claim that it applies to turn-based games

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[MakerCaker]

Tactics are used more often than you might think. For example, I used to play a warlock in a party that also had a barbarian. You have no idea how many times I used repelling blast to impale an enemy on the barbarian's weapon. It was fun.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The people I play with and I have all played a lot of tabletop skirmish games like Malifaux and Infinity, which are all about the tactics but it seems like in all the RPGs I've played in, in every edition, combat generally just devolves into monsters and PCs trading weapon blows with the odd spell thrown in for good measure. Flanking and counter-flanking seems to be the extent of tactical play that I've seen (though I did used to get some good mileage with the grease spell with my old Pathfinder bard).

I know this question is kind of circumstantial but do any of you have any cool tricks and combos that can be used in combat by players and DMs to make them more tactical?

Yes.
1. Eliminate the rules that make the game more "tactical."
2. Separate movement from your turn.
3. There is a risk to something more than just a regular melee attack/engagement, but success has benefits.

1. Eliminate the rules that make the game more "tactical."
In my campaign, I was originally designing a whole bunch of maneuvers and such. The problem is, that no matter how many you define, they will always fall back on the maneuvers they can use the most reliably, in the most cases. In other words, more tactical options were really reducing the number of tactical options, because instead of considering the battlefield and the opponents, people play to the tactics that give them a mechanical advantage in the rules.

So the DM and the players have to describe what both sides are doing to try to gain the upper hand. The DM then determines whether one or the other is sufficient to gain advantage. As in real life, not every tactic or approach works every time, as both sides will generally be attempting to gain the upper hand and prevent their opponent from doing the same.

2. Separate movement from your turn.
Although I generally use TotM now, since I got rid of most of my thousands of minis, when I use minis I don't use a grid, and we don't measure distances. Why?

In part, precisely because of the problem you mention. Flanking rules are generally designed around the fact that movement is tied to your turn. That is, you can "move 30 feet to flank this mini while it stands there and lets you."

When fighting two against one, the obvious tactic is to attempt to flank the target. In an open area, though, this is very difficult to do with just two people. If the target simply circles around one of you, then he can keep both of you in front of him. To reliably flank somebody, you really need three people. However, in a restricted space, such as a dungeon corridor, it's a different story. Overrunning or tumbling past the creature, if possible, can put the two of you on opposite sides. Of course, their smartest tactic is to attempt to overrun one of you, to get both you of on the same side again.

In my campaign, movement is separated from your turn. Everybody is assumed to be in motion, unless stated otherwise, and you can use your reaction to start to dash (in addition to your action, or bonus action with the right abilities). So if somebody is moving toward you, you can move away from them. Most movement in combat is usually to close to melee with somebody, or more to another position. So what's really important to know is whether you can get there before your action occurs. And I'm not concerned about whether you are 30 or 35 feet away. If you're 40 feet away, then you'll need to run to get there, so use your reaction to initiate a dash, in which case you can close in time for your action.

So if everybody is able to move in reaction to everybody else, then tactical movement becomes a bigger thing. You have to work as a team to control the battlefield.

3. There is a risk to something more than just a regular melee attack/engagement, but success has benefits.
Imposing conditions can alter the course of battle significantly. Knocking somebody prone, blinding them, etc. One approach is to define a bunch of maneuvers, but then we're back at the first problem.

More importantly, there are reasons why tripping our opponent, disarming them, throwing sand in their eyes, etc. were not used more often. And that's because when you're engaged in direct combat with somebody, those activities are risky as you're letting down your guard momentarily.

So for most special maneuvers (trip, disarm, really just about anything), I use the following general approach:

A -0 to -15 penalty to hit depending on circumstances.
The target makes a Constitution or Dexterity saving throw to avoid.
If the attempt fails, the target can use their reaction to make an opportunity attack if within reach.

Note that anybody can also use their reaction to parry (opposed attack roll), including parrying opportunity attacks. So if you haven't used your reaction, you can potentially reduce the risk.

As always, circumstances also play a part. For example, they might have disadvantage on their saving throw if they can't see you (they are running around a corner and you're attempting to trip them with a polearm).

Those three changes have a huge influence on the tactics used by the players.