Another strategy thread.

[hong]

Unless you're a rogue who wants to go into melee, that is. Rogues who want to go into melee should always seriously consider investing in two-weapon fighting. That extra chance to deal sneak attack damage is genuinely worth it, and the +2 from flanking (because, of course, you're going to take the advice that's already been given for rogues and always move to flank opponents, right?) negates the penalty for two-weapon fighting quite nicely. Big, muscular fighter-types should stick with their two-handed weapons if they want to deal out the big damage, but anyone who gets sneak attacks is going to want that extra attack with their off-hand, I guarantee it.

That's a pretty high-risk strategy IME. If you can kill the other guy, then great, but if you can't, you might be in trouble: rogues don't really have the hit points to take a full round of attacks in melee, unlike tanks. A rogue is probably better off getting Spring Attack and moving in and out of range.

 

[Numion]

If you can't come up with a tailored tactic for your group, try ordering the group into two lines: tanks and ranged fighters. The first line protects the second line from getting in contact with the enemy.

This way the often more fragile ranged combatants (archers, spellcasters) can use some of their precious protection spells on the melee fighters too. This configuration makes the meleers more powerful, and the ranged combatants don't need to be.

Extra: Beholder tactic: prepare to cast blindness when the anti-magic eye closes. Blind beholder is a cakewalk.

 

[argo]

Rules elucidation would be helpful then. Over-run was discussed in the game. I wanted, and the other players wanted, my PC to charge on. Take the battle to the Cleric. But the way we all read the rules, each Over-run was a single round action against each puny goblin. There were a more than a few goblins on the rope bridge between my char and the Cleric, even though the distance was short. Alsih20 hizzownself thought my char should have just kicked each gobbie of the bridge and gone forward. Did we read the rules wrong?

Yeah, the overrun rules do kinda suck. Ok then, here is some more advice specifically tailored to a "bridge ambush" scenario.

Whenever you encounter a bridge (or any bottleneck. Matter of fact that is another good bit of advice in itself: learn to spot "bottlenecks" both to be wary of ambushes and to possibly set your own) you should never have the entire party cross it at once but instead cross one at a time. Possibly have the first across be a pair. This will often upset any ambushers (be they sniper or "cut the bridge" types) as they wanted to suprise you all in the open and hopefully they will hesitate long enough trying to decide which of you to attack that your point man (as others have said, in this case it should be the tank not the scout, so you were right to be in front) can detect the ambush and either retreat or possibly counter-ambush. If the pointman does detect the ambush (a good reason to have the tank and the rogue be the first pair across) or is ambushed on the other side he needs to decide instantly if he can hold the beachhead (possible) or retreat (more likely) the decision depends on the type of ambush and weither or not they spring it on him halfway across or on the other side. If he does retreat the rest of the party should not come out to aid him but cover him with ranged fire (since the tank went first that means it is the archers and spellslingers who stayed behind, along with the cleric to be their rear-guard slab of armor. see how this all starts to fit together? ) Worst case scenario you loose one pary member rather than risk a TPK.

In this specific case, if you and the rogue had rushed the bridge while the others wiated on the far side the ambush might have looked like: 1)the enemy cleric springs the ambush on you just where it happened, in this case you should retreat. The rogue can tumble past the summoned creatrue while you can overrun or bullrush it and get past in 1 round (hopefully leave you enough time to run the rest of the way before the bridge is cut). 2) the enemy lets you get to the other side and springs the ambush when the rest of the party starts to cross, in this case you will have the party split up with enemies in between the two groups (bad) but they will not be able to reach the bridge to cut it (good). You should be able to "turtle up" and be defensive till the rest deal with the one summoned creature on the bridge and come to back you up. Once again, these are not foolproof strategies but they should give you more of a fighting chance than you had here.

And I still advocate retreat in 90% of abush scenarios.

An adventuring party is more like a modern special forces team than anything else. If you get the chance watch a documentary on the SAS on History channel or something. You do not have to be as well drilled as they are (unless your group enjoys discussing tactics that much on game night) but some of the concepts can be easily applied.

Hope that helps.

 

[Greylock]

Thanks for that Argo.

We have discussed this to death in private and looking at the advice given here we didn't do so bad. The way the encounter played out had a certain air of 'inevitability'. The fighter crossed alone, with the rogue and ranger not far behind. The sorceror rushed to do what he could, but made a nasty reflex save on the first bridge and pretty much smashed his face. The druid took care of the horses, which as it turns out was good. The fellow guest playing the cleric intended to target the horses next. The rogue and ranger stayed close enough to support the tank with ranged weapons. The whole thing came apart when the first spell the cleric cast was a Hold spell (I think) on the fighter. Took him outta action for several rounds but left him in the thick of things. That pretty much wrote the script for the rest of the battle.

But, we have moved on...

Thanks again.

G

 

[Beale Knight]

An adventuring party is more like a modern special forces team than anything else....You do not have to be as well drilled as they are but some of the concepts can be easily applied.

Hope that helps.

The bottleneck/bridge advice is well taken, and there's been quite a few posts with excellent general advice as well. I've cut pasted and edited many of the posts. Thanks to everyone who contributed.

However - I feel compelled to point out that we are just about as far away from a special forces team as can be! We've been using the Game Class terms of course, but a more accurate description of our group would be a knight, a hunter, a forest surveyer (with spells), and survivalist hermit. Only the sorcerer fits (fitted) well with the traditional game-term class title. If ever there was a more mish-mash, not designed for optimum adventuring success in the far flung wild, group than us I haven't seen it. My concept of the Wilderness Rogue as a hunter means I have allocated exactly zero (0) ranks in Tumbling. It simply doesn't fit the character concept. But he can slice up some deer real fast and good with his 6 Ranks in Profession: Hunter!

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

That's a pretty high-risk strategy IME. If you can kill the other guy, then great, but if you can't, you might be in trouble: rogues don't really have the hit points to take a full round of attacks in melee, unlike tanks. A rogue is probably better off getting Spring Attack and moving in and out of range.

Oh, yeah. There's nothing like running up, unloading a full attack into a BBEG, doing lots of damage, and then crumpling like a cheap tie with the BBEG's response. I've done that entirely too many times, and I've only now learned.

If you're going to do the melee two-weapon rogue, make sure and come in on the BBEG's blind side as he's locked in combat with the tank. If you have a high Int, try and squeeze in three levels of swashbuckler; you get Weapon Finesse for free, more Fort save, and add your Int to your damage.

Brad

 

[Greylock]

The bottleneck/bridge advice is well taken, and there's been quite a few posts with excellent general advice as well. I've cut pasted and edited many of the posts. Thanks to everyone who contributed.

However - I feel compelled to point out that we are just about as far away from a special forces team as can be! We've been using the Game Class terms of course, but a more accurate description of our group would be a knight, a hunter, a forest surveyer (with spells), and survivalist hermit. Only the sorcerer fits (fitted) well with the traditional game-term class title. If ever there was a more mish-mash, not designed for optimum adventuring success in the far flung wild, group than us I haven't seen it. My concept of the Wilderness Rogue as a hunter means I have allocated exactly zero (0) ranks in Tumbling. It simply doesn't fit the character concept. But he can slice up some deer real fast and good with his 6 Ranks in Profession: Hunter!

Well said, Wes.

But that's like the third time you've refered to Aneirin as a Knight. I don't really see him like that . The scale mail he's wearing was a choice I made based on a waayyy cool pic of Indo-Indian fighter types. Decided it didn't fit long ago, but I'm stuck with it now. Go with the young Washington, tall Francis Marion, Light Horse Harry thing and it will help ya visualise the char better. ;p

 

[Beale Knight]

Well said, Wes.

But that's like the third time you've refered to Aneirin as a Knight. I don't really see him like that . The scale mail he's wearing was a choice I made based on a waayyy cool pic of Indo-Indian fighter types. Decided it didn't fit long ago, but I'm stuck with it now. Go with the young Washington, tall Francis Marion, Light Horse Harry thing and it will help ya visualise the char better. ;p

Fighter.