D&D 5E Tactics in combat

JWO · Feb 20, 2015

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?

SirAntoine · Feb 20, 2015

It's all relative. I haven't seen either of those two games, but I've always found D&D to be pretty tactical. A tactic is just something you do to win or achieve another task, such as retreating. The many spells in D&D add all sorts of effects to shoot for, and there can be distinct differences between which weapons and maneuvers you use. In order to frame a better answer, let me ask what kind of tactics you'd want to see in a duel between only two combatants? And separately, for large groups?

DaveDash · Feb 20, 2015

We love our tactics, strategy, and war gaming. It's hard to come up with a standard SOP or ROE for every situation though, a lot of it depends on spells, terrain, monsters, etc.

Probably the most common thing however I use (I'm a tanky Hill Dwarf War Cleric plus three ranged guys as 'backup') is to charge into combat using the dodge action. I don't really need to hit stuff. Last session I had about 20 attack rolls miss me, meanwhile my backup team killed everyone from the tree line.

The biggest thing that encourages tactical thinking is to use a tabletop with grids and lots of terrain, virtual or otherwise. I have lots of little terrain features on my maps which encourages more tactical play. I also encourage players to discuss tactics and allow them to speak out of character to help each other.

Kikuras · Feb 20, 2015

I suppose if you're clever enough, you could herd your enemies into a portable hole?

SirAntoine · Feb 20, 2015

Some people don't like tactics, though, huh. Maybe they don't like to think too hard.

One thing that has notably been absent from D&D, for the most part, is true mass combat. It was made to focus on individuals, to let them go on adventures and do things no one could do in real life. The imagination, not the mechanics, forms the basis of what you can do.

Who has the high ground? How good is visibility? What is the terrain? Who has initiative? These are all examples of questions which provide tactical advantages and disadvantages. Initiative is not terribly well done in the standard. Weapon speeds, or round stages would do better, but different tactics should be able to influence this, and initiative should be rerolled every round.

Think of how to distract foes, how to divide them, and how to prepare special attacks.

SirAntoine · Feb 20, 2015

DaveDash said:
We love our tactics, strategy, and war gaming. It's hard to come up with a standard SOP or ROE for every situation though, a lot of it depends on spells, terrain, monsters, etc.

Probably the most common thing however I use (I'm a tanky Hill Dwarf War Cleric plus three ranged guys as 'backup') is to charge into combat using the dodge action. I don't really need to hit stuff. Last session I had about 20 attack rolls miss me, meanwhile my backup team killed everyone from the tree line.

The biggest thing that encourages tactical thinking is to use a tabletop with grids and lots of terrain, virtual or otherwise. I have lots of little terrain features on my maps which encourages more tactical play. I also encourage players to discuss tactics and allow them to speak out of character to help each other.

View attachment 66963

View attachment 66962

Nice maps. I agree they can help tactical thinking, but for many it can hurt. Taking the time to imagine the scenario and to describe it well is better. Looking at an overhead grid, it's harder to imagine the walls, for instance, while you should be thinking three-dimensionally to think of what you want to do.

Kikuras · Feb 20, 2015

I think maybe I was taking the terminology in "combat generally just devolves into monsters and PCs trading weapon blows with the odd spell thrown in for good measure" too literally. I was trying to think of tactics that might end a combat situation without relying on reducing enemies to 0, and not using spells. Strategies that might require more skill checks than attack rolls.

Of course depends on the DM. The past few years I suffered under a DM who would never allow 'ground of [the PC's] choosing'. His terms only, and usually very unfavorable to the players. But I've also played under DMs that delight in PCs setting ambushes and choosing ground, making battle plans. THAT can be fun.

DaveDash · Feb 20, 2015

SirAntoine said:
Nice maps. I agree they can help tactical thinking, but for many it can hurt. Taking the time to imagine the scenario and to describe it well is better. Looking at an overhead grid, it's harder to imagine the walls, for instance, while you should be thinking three-dimensionally to think of what you want to do.

Not really. We're constantly making use of 3 dimensions and don't find having a 2d map hinders us in the slightest. Heck dude I'm in the middle of a Dragon fight which uses a mix if vertical and horizontal maps (on a huge cliff with caverns on it).

Digital maps can limit narrative creativity though sure. Given I'm not a huge fan of narrated story driven creatively in combat, and prefer a minis war-game type environment, that's ok with me.

Shiroiken · Feb 20, 2015

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.

SirAntoine · Feb 20, 2015

DaveDash said:
Not really. We're constantly making use of 3 dimensions and don't find having a 2d map hinders us in the slightest. Heck dude I'm in the middle of a Dragon fight which uses a mix if vertical and horizontal maps (on a huge cliff with caverns on it).

Digital maps can limit narrative creativity though sure. Given I'm not a huge fan of narrated story driven creatively in combat, and prefer a minis war-game type environment, that's ok with me.

It's extraordinary that you're using 3D maps, or even vertical 2D maps.

D&D 5E Tactics in combat

JWO

First Post

SirAntoine

Banned

DaveDash

Explorer

Kikuras

First Post

SirAntoine

Banned

SirAntoine

Banned

Kikuras

First Post

DaveDash

Explorer

Shiroiken

Legend

SirAntoine

Banned

Similar Threads