DMs, do you use the different combat options?

[Old One]

Oh Hell Yeah...

I have used most special attacks/maneuvers at one time or another and found, as others have, that it forces the PCs to think outside the box a bit and not just fall into the "You swing, I swing" pattern of boring-a$$ combat. Bullrush, aid other, disarm, trip, overrun, grappling and sunder are all valid maneuvers and can bring about a slightly more cinematic feel to combat.

One episode saw a an enemy fighter bullrush both frontline fighters into a pit trap. They both mangaged to grab the edge, but dangled precariously above the spiked pit. As the enemy fighter prepared to make shish-kabob out of them with his ranseur, the party sorcerer cast rope trick, swung across the pit, avoided the AoO and grappled the fighter. That is the stuff legends are made of!

I think a great many DMs miss out on the opportunity to use tactics creatively with their critters (even catapult fodder like goblins, orcs and gnolls). Why on earth would a group of orcs pair off with PCs for 1-to-1 or even 2-to-1 combat? Aid other, bullrush, feigned retreat, charge with longspear and grappling make even individually weak opponents much more formidable.

My 2 coppers...

~ Old One

 

[Old One]

Grrr...double post

Darn double-posts!

 

[Kichwas]

The fights in my game so far have been primarly outdoors on an open plain... they've started at from 1000 to 500 feet and been largely over by the time anyone closed to melee.

So I haven't had much of an opportunity to use many tactics in the four sessions so far. Last session an Owlbear tried to grapple one of the fighters, but got it's only missed attack in the entire combat on that attack...

Given it's animal mind, it would not generally up to more sophisticated tactics.

That said, I plan to make full and brutal use of any tactics I can when they fit the creature I am using as the campaign develops. They almost faced off against a spiked chain wielding orc and his 6 companions last night - if they had I would have made brutal use of trips and AoOs for which the chain orc and polearm companions where built to tag-team with (while the orc archers dealt with anything not caught in their machine).

I see it as a part of my job to use the nastiest tactics I can device for any given encounter -within the bounds of what that creature is capable of-.

 

[Storm Raven]

Sure, I use them all the time. In many cases I try to design particular opponents with "signature styles" of combat and then the PCs (if they pay attention) can figure out their opponent's likely tactics if they pay attention.

Combat should be more than just a battle of hit point attrition. That's boring. Throwing in odd maneuvers, different tactics, and unusual terrain is a big way to force combat into a more interesting direction.

And one more thing, which I find most DMs forget: have your NPCs make mistakes. The NPCs don't know that the greataxe wielding cleic has a high Will save, for all the NPC wizard can tell, he's dealing with just another fighter until the cleric casts a spell in his presence. The orc shaman doesn't know that one PC is LN, and not good, so casting protection from good will be of no benefit. The goblin may not think to avoid an AoO when he is maneuvering for position (especially if you forget). And so on.

 

[smetzger]

I'm DMing this group on the weekend and was wondering if other DMs employed them?

Also, if you do employ them, do they drastically change the difficulty of an encounter?

Yes, I employ them. No I don't find that they drastically change the difficulty of the encounter.

Special attacks make encounters more memorable and tend to eliminate the "I swing my sword and the other guy." doldrums.

Another good way to make memorable encounters is with terrain that effects combat tactics.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I use them all the time; I find that the special manuevers--along with the use of terrain-- make combat much much much more interesting and cinematic.

Improved Bull Rush, for instance, is a pretty lousy feat when most of your combats take place on flat planes. However, if you add blade barriers, cliffs, large trees, geysers, pits, and chasms to your battlefield, it becomes a lot more interesting because you actually have things you can bull-rush people into or out of.

Similarly, combats get an awful lot more interesting when you occasionally take your AoOs against the horde of charging gnoll warriors to sunder their battle axes or your AoOs against the Rhenee bandits to disarm their daggers.

Grappling presents a lot of interesting options as well--although, like Improved Trip, I suspect that in 3.5, it may be useful in too many situations.

As for Aid Other, I've found that it's very useful for weak characters. When my spellcasting cleric cohort (8 str, 10 dex, 14 con, 10 int, 18 wis, 13 cha) in one campaign doesn't have a useful spell to cast, she'll do wacky things that don't have much chance of success like throw her spear at the bad guys. If they're tough bad guys, she usually throws the spear to Aid Other (which gives her about a 55% chance of success--rather pathetic really).

 

[Khorod]

They make it fun, and I think they are part of the balance of high AC for many combats- those ability checks and touch attacks are important.

In my OA game the party is developing a psychological condition surrounding the sight of mist- be it an elemental creature, a literal fog of war, or the spray from a waterfall. I think I must have overused the vapors

>=80% of combats should involve strange terrain or special maneuvers, so the few straight up smashing combats always remain flesh poundingly fun!