D&D 5E Tactics in combat

[SirAntoine]

Terrain dictates tactics. If your combats occur on flat open areas (as a DM I knew used to do), then there are no tactics, only a brawl. Corridors (man-made or natural), water, broken ground, higher ground, cover, etc. can all be used by the DM to give options to the combatants.

Sometimes players aren't interested in tactics. I've found the Dodge Action to be heavily underutilized, because players HATE losing attacks, even if the attack has little chance of success or the Dodge would effect many enemies. I've known melee characters who don't carry ranged weapons, because the player just want to run up and smash things. You can't make players care.

Interestingly, the best tactics are often decried as non-dynamic combats. A party of 6, with 2 tanks (sword & board) followed by 2 polearm wielders, followed by 2 spellcasters/archers is a powerful team in most adventures. In the standard 10' corridor, everyone is effective, and they can use very little resources if the Tanks use Dodge. In larger areas, the spellcasters/archers either move to the center or fall back, while the polearm guys move to the sides/flanks. Area effects (breath weapons and spells) are a problem, but they can be mitigated with Counterspell and altering tactics against those enemies.

I wouldn't allow the polearm and archery attacks through the front line in a 10' corridor, but what you should use are hirelings who can protect the mage and form lines in any direction. The more people you have, the more you can cover certain positions.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I wouldn't allow the polearm and archery attacks through the front line in a 10' corridor, but what you should use are hirelings who can protect the mage and form lines in any direction. The more people you have, the more you can cover certain positions.

Why not? The front line will provide cover from the archers but they can still fire if they want to risk it, and pole arms were designed to do exactly that although it would be with a larger shield wall and more pole arms.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Most combat I see in D&D is about the individual and not the team. The difference between an RPG and a skirmish game is that the skirmish game has 1 player manipulating multiple characters completely under their control. In D&D you control your character and try to have an arrangement with the other player's characters. Depending on the group this can be a well-oiled combat team to an anarchic herd of felines.

 

[Jester David]

D&D tends to be more strategic than tactical. Fights range in weight from large to incidental.

If you want a tactical D&D experience, try 4th Edition. It was really designed to offer a more tactical game focusing on power choices, positioning, etc.

 

[iserith]

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?

I have found that players tend to be a lot more creative when both they and the monsters have a goal other than reducing the hit points of the other side to zero. Mind you, that is a tactic they can employ to succeed, but often isn't the best option. There are some tricks to structuring the win and loss conditions and framing them in a way the players will clearly understand.

Check out some of my short-form scenarios for examples.

 

[Sebkha]

If you want a tactical D&D experience, try 4th Edition. It was really designed to offer a more tactical game focusing on power choices, positioning, etc.

Seconded. Even if you don't decide to play 4e, that edition's focus on encounter design has quite a bit of advice that might be transferrable to other games. The 4e DMG2 has a section called "Creating Movement" on page 56 full of ideas for making fights tactically interesting.

 

[jayoungr]

When I asked a similar question on another board, I was pointed here:

http://www.d20radio.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4406

There's a PDF and accompanying podcast. It's for Star Wars Saga Edition, but the principles mentioned apply very well to D&D also. I have found their advice to be hugely helpful in designing interesting combat encounters for any system.

I am happy to pass on the advice to another person!

 

[Dausuul]

I wouldn't allow the polearm and archery attacks through the front line in a 10' corridor...

Why? Using polearms from the second and third rank is the core principle of the phalanx, a highly successful tactic used by real-world armies for thousands of years. And a corridor is the ideal place for it, since the two main weaknesses of the phalanx are flank attacks and uneven ground.

With regard to D&D tactics, I agree that terrain and objectives other than "kill everything" are crucial. It's these variables that prevent a party from converging on a single optimal combat routine. What I have found is that when the DM throws a variety of terrains at you, mobility is king. It's very much worthwhile for the wizard to spend a whole round casting dimension door, just to put the barbarian next to the enemy mage. The Way of Shadow monk's at-will teleport power--even with its limitations--is freakin' awesome.

Also, if you're adventuring in urban environments or on ships, the ability of fireball to ignite unattended objects is every bit as valuable as its damage. When you're outnumbered and outgunned, there's nothing like setting the building on fire to even the odds. (Of course, this works a lot better if your party lives in the deep end of the alignment pool and doesn't plan on staying too long in any one city. Collateral damage tends to be high, and the authorities get upset.)

 

[SirAntoine]

Why not? The front line will provide cover from the archers but they can still fire if they want to risk it, and pole arms were designed to do exactly that although it would be with a larger shield wall and more pole arms.

You could hit your comrades. The polearms can, too, and they also have to attack through cover.

 

[Kikuras]

You could hit your comrades. The polearms can, too, and they also have to attack through cover.

Can you reference the rules on hitting a comrade that might be providing cover?