Do you prefer damage or "tactics" during combat?

[Bryan898]

I prefer tactics than pure damage, and while playing I often choose the feats and abilities that allow tactical options. For instance I rarely choose Weapon Specialization or Spell Focus, as I typically find feats that simply add modifiers as bland. I prefer to expand my options.

Now on the other side of the screen I often give bonuses for off the wall tactics, or actions that are simply cinematic in flavor to encourage that type of play. I try to keep the game for boiling down to "I do x damage" as much as possible.

 

[Victim]

Really, I like both. Being able to quickly remove opponents is a good tactic. As a general rule, I go for damage with fighter types with a preferably a decent trick or two, while casters are more tactical with damage on the side. Casters usually have an absolute advantage in tactical tricks.

Even with a strong emphasis in damage though, it's foolish to neglect secondary effects. A strong fighter type can grapple with the same attributes he uses to hurt people. Most of the Orb spells are good because they do good damage AND have a secondary effect. Totally ignoring tactical elements produces crap like Polar Ray.

 

[shilsen]

If we are talking about "great tactics" I love great tactics. Its just that 98% of the time I find the best possible tactic to hit the mob for a huge ton of dmg.

My PCs tend to think the same. That's one reason why significantly lower-level NPCs keep beating up on them

 

[Wombat]

Wow, neither option really works for me.

What I want is combat is a reason for the combat to take place, rather than just having a game base around having combat. Combat is the basis of D&D, and by extension of D20 -- this is because D&D grew out of the wargame rules Chainmail (the original yellow-cover version, not the remake from a few years ago). Everything else is an add-on to the core combat rules. This is one of the major reasons that D&D has never been my #1 game (except back when it was literally the only rpg in town).

Tactics? Great, up to a point. Damage? Fine, whatever gets the job done. Less emphasis on combat and combative answers to all problems? Now that really excites me!

 

[Henry]

I choose "tactics", because I choose ANYTHING that makes the enemy stop hitting me.

It's only been in the last 6 years or so that I've taken a more keep interest in save-or-die spells, invisibility, concealment and cover, etc. And it's paid off many times over.

 

[lukelightning]

I play a rogue and find that tactics suck. Even in optimal situations "ooh, I can flank!" there are too many things that flat-out negate my sneak attack.

And tactics such as disarm and trip are pretty much limited to humanoidish foes (medium people wielding weapons). A fiendish chuul is unimpressed by your disarm bonus.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think I like strategy games over either tactics or kick-in-the-door. By that I mean combat tactics are thought out beforehand instead of on the fly. I thinking choosing the battlefield, the sitation, and whatever other odds you can control in character is going to help you succeed. Just like in the non-"beer and peanuts" miniature wargames.

The core books advise that adding variant rules which increase risk (like natural 1's) is bad, moreso for the PCs than for the monsters. The reason being: the PCs have to roll those die risks every combat, where the monsters are likely only sticking around for one. Less risk means less chance of PC death. IMO, strategic thinking takes this principle to its maximum. If you and your fellow players can come up with strategies where fewer dice rolls are needed to win, than its the decisions which dictate success and not chance. These are truly awesome victories in my mind. Of course time constraints, resources, and other factors come into play, but that's all part of the fun. By beating say... 1/2 the dungeon without any hit point loss and using maybe only half the casters' spells, then the group succeeds much faster both session-time wise and in XP levelling.

 

[EricNoah]

What I probably need to do to spice up the game is to have more situations where capturing the enemy alive is relevant and useful. That's where strategy becomes pretty meaningful.

 

[Andor]

I love tactics, in theory. In practice however I've had way too many times where either:

A) Me: "Okay I tumble into postion, so your rogue can sneak attack him like we agreed!"
Other Player: "Okay I'll... Hey wait! Wasn't there a 3gp gem in the statue? I'll go pry it out!"
GM: "Okay, now the other monsters flank you and ... *roll* eat your spleen."
Me: "@#$%^&*"

or

B) Me: "These guys are fighting in the darhovian style? You said that was really footwork heavy right? Okay, I'm going make a called shot to his foot to try and mess up his style advantages."
GM: "Huh. I have no idea how to adjudicate that, so I'm just going to say your weapon breaks."
Me: "@#$%^&*"

Lately I've become a firm believer in "Death is the ultimate debuff."

 

[EricNoah]

The groups where I'm a player -- we TALK a good game. But after that first round, any kind of game plan is out the window.

I generally encourage the tanks to go after the spellcasters, and the spellcasters to go after the tanks, but it doesn't usually work out...