Fightin' 101
- Thread starter Christian Walker
- Start date
S'mon said:
Heh - we tend not to go for that wimpy '20% of your resources' stuff. More like 90%. At the end of the battle, three out of the five were dead, the cleric was down and bleeding, and the paladin killed off the last orc with less than ten hit points.
As I said, near total party kill. We also had two no-shows, so he was expecting seven rather than five when he made the encounter. He suggested 'maybe I should take a few minutes to soften up these battles', but of course we demanded that we could take it
.
Hida Bukkorosu
First Post
PCs should have to make a Leadership or Intelligence or Knowledge(strategy) check in order to be allowed to use tactics.
It's silly for the 5 INT half-orc barbarian to be talking about concentration of fire, flanking maneuvers, and such just because the player happens to spend a lot of time watching the History Channel and playing Advanced Squad Leader.
It's silly for the 5 INT half-orc barbarian to be talking about concentration of fire, flanking maneuvers, and such just because the player happens to spend a lot of time watching the History Channel and playing Advanced Squad Leader.
maddman75 said:Heh - we tend not to go for that wimpy '20% of your resources' stuff. More like 90%. At the end of the battle, three out of the five were dead, the cleric was down and bleeding, and the paladin killed off the last orc with less than ten hit points.
As I said, near total party kill. We also had two no-shows, so he was expecting seven rather than five when he made the encounter. He suggested 'maybe I should take a few minutes to soften up these battles', but of course we demanded that we could take it
Your PCs must be very tough, as well as having good tactics, or your DM is lenient. I found 1 Ettin more than a match for 2 4th-level PCs (ie close to CR 6), so 2 Ettins should be able to defeat a group of 4 - 4 Ettins vs 5 PCs I'd have expected to be a walkover. Typically I'd match 1 Ettin + 12 orcs vs a party of ca 6th level PCs and expect a tough but winnable fight.
Tough PCs plus good tactics. The DM by no means took it easy on us. He made ample use of the ettins' reach and the swarming of the orcs to try and disrupt us. Most of us have been gaming with each other for decades, we know how to back each other up. And as I said, it nearly did wipe us out. We don't follow the default magic rules very closely though. We tend to have a few powerful items. The paladin had a +1 holy greatsword that did great damage to the ettins, and I ended up tossing my Ring of Invisibility at the cleric so he could get out of the fight. But those are pretty much the only items in the group, apart from a couple of potions/wands.
clark411 said:
In fact, I think it has be overstressed. It's good advice, but hardly a universally sound or best tactic. I think this falls into the "don't ever say never" category.
I don't care if modern military books say "X is always preferrable". Most of the texts I've seen that say this are written about large group tactics, rather than small. And IME, military strategy texts stopped dealing with melee combat around the time of the Civil War, and D&D combat rather centers around melee. Lastly, the tactical situations in RPGs are much more varied than those seen on mundane battlefields.
When The military texts include how to deal with Polymorphs, Teleports, and the host of abilities seen in the game, then I'll take them as concrete advice. Until then, they aren't terribly good supporting arguments.
Umbran said:
Actually 'concentration of fire' tends to be emphasised in small-groups tactical doctrine. What it leaves out, what is important in melee combat and many other combat situations, is the need to 'fix' the rest of the enemy battle line while you concrentrate forces at the critical point.
Eg: if you're fighting 3 ogres with 5 PCs, the smart thing is _not_ to have all 5 PCs attack 1 ogre - this leaves the 2 remaining ogres free to concentrate attacks on the PC of their choice. A better bet is to have 2 PCs tie up 2 of the ogres (Monks are good at this, Fighters are ok), while 3 PCs concentrate fire on the third.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
But what if the player of the Half Orc Barbarian has a good tactical idea, but the player with the wizard with Knowledge (strategy) maxed out didn´t?
And on the other hand, if I have to roll for a tactical decision, does this mean the DM has to come up with tactics for his players when they roll good?
Can we not just remove all these stupid tactical aspects from the game and just play this way:
"I roll Knowledge (tactical) 25!"
"Okay, you have made a brillianf plan for this situation. The whole group gets a +4 to attack, initiative and damage rolls".
"I attack with 31."
"Hit"
"21 points of damage, 5 of it fire damage, with a +4 weapon. Next atack 16"
"Miss."
"Next attack a natural 20. 16 points of damage. 1 of it fire. +4 weapon again."
"Okay, enemy fighter 12504 is dead. You gain 600 XP and find 252 pieces of gold and a masterwork greatsword and a breastplate and an unidentified potion. Shall I reduce the money you just gained to identify it?"
"Yes, please."
"It is a Potion of Cure Moderate."
Mustrum Ridcully
TracerBullet42
First Post
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Excellent! It could just be one gigantic spreadsheet of joy! Or should I call it a spreadsheet +4 or something....
Similar Threads
