Master tactician or battlefield dummy?

[Kzach]

In reading about DM'ing tactics in another thread and also on character development/optimisation boards, it's apparent that many mechanical and even class choices in 4e are dependent on the DM's style rather than the player's preferences.

The most stand-out example of this is with marks and especially the Essential's defender auras and especially the knight with opportunity attacks. The knight can be either a dominant defender or entirely irrelevant, all depending on the DM's style.

So my question is, as a DM, should you be a master tactician or a battlefield dummy?

 

[Kzach]

As for my personal preference, I've always believed that the DM should be the best roleplayer at the table. To that end, I believe that what tactics a DM uses should be dependant on what creatures he's roleplaying and that this extends even into mechanical decisions.

If I'm roleplaying dumb goblins, I'll provoke opportunity attacks all over the place. But if I'm roleplaying the greatest general alive, then you bet your butt I'm going to try and outmanoeuvre and out-think the PC's.

 

[Rechan]

Additionally to the "greatest roleplayer" thing, I'd style it to the group I'm playing.

Let's take for example that I have a party who is missing a role. I can do one of three things:

1) Design encounters as if all roles were present; it will be clear that the lack of that role shows up, it causes increased risk but it's not a detriment to the game itelf.

2) I exploit this weakness. If the PCs lack ranged opponents, then more opponents will pup up at ranged.

3) I design encounters more on par with the party's makeup. So a group with no ranged capabilities will deal with more melee opposition, with the occasional encounter that poses a challenge due to their lack of range.

So it's not even class, but DM outlook.

I generally go for option #3. And I generally try to have opponents cause OAs or violate marks. Because that lets PCs get to strut their powers. But not when it makes sense (see: smart vs. dumb enemies). A troll doesn't care about the threatening fighter, his top priority is taking out that fire sorcerer.

You also have to remember that Dms have to remember about OAs etc. You generally train yousrelf to avoid that sort of thing, or you forget that the fighter's powers trigger on an OA, etc. The DM can't be aware of all PCs powers all the time, he's got a lot of stuff running.

But IMO, a fighter is a force of nature. Even a savvy DM has trouble maneuvering around a fighter built to lock down enemies. I don't know how well the Knight differs from the regular fighter, but I don't think they could become completely irrelevent.

 

[brehobit]

Defender comment

Let's talk defenders for a bit as that was raised as the most common issue.


There are really a few "optimal" approaches the baddies can take.
#1 Try to focus attacks on the "soft" targets, but respect the defender's marks.
#2 Focus everyone solely on killing the defender
#3 Focus everyone on killing a "soft" target.

As a player of a defender, I prefer to see a mix of all three (and the occasional "just use a poor strategy" when appropriate). It makes the game more tactically interesting. I like taking my OA, but I also like getting the attention of the baddies...

The only thing that is really annoying is when you have optimized your OA and no one ever provokes. That just makes for wasted resources...

 

[Riastlin]

As for my personal preference, I've always believed that the DM should be the best roleplayer at the table. To that end, I believe that what tactics a DM uses should be dependant on what creatures he's roleplaying and that this extends even into mechanical decisions.

If I'm roleplaying dumb goblins, I'll provoke opportunity attacks all over the place. But if I'm roleplaying the greatest general alive, then you bet your butt I'm going to try and outmanoeuvre and out-think the PC's.

This is more or less my approach (though goblins are not entirely dumb).

Mindless undead tend to whack the nearest target -- possibly going after the target that is tearing it a new one. The defenders love these types of encounters. Slightly unintelligent monsters might continue to honor the mark, even if its not entirely wise to do so. The really smart monsters though will try to do what's tactically best based on the information that it would have available (i.e. they might not necessarily know about all of the powers at the PC's disposal even though I usually have a pretty good idea).

To me, the whole "GM Style" thing tends to have more to do with the type of encounters/adventures they run as opposed to how they actually run the monsters in combat (though there is some issue at times with regard to marks).

 

[On Puget Sound]

My intelligent monsters will usually respect a mark until the fighter misses them twice in a row (what am I worried about, he can't hurt me) or they miss the fighter twice in a row (I can't get through that armor, have to find an easier target).

 

[Rune]

I don't know how well the Knight differs from the regular fighter, but I don't think they could become completely irrelevent.

Well, they could be, if the DM pushes them around a lot. The knight relies on its aura and punishing strike (whatever it's called--don't have my books with me) to stop foes that are trying to get around it, but it doesn't mark them. Consequently, if the knight gets pushed out of position, it's not stopping anyone from doing anything.

 

[Rechan]

My intelligent monsters will usually respect a mark until the fighter misses them twice in a row (what am I worried about, he can't hurt me) or they miss the fighter twice in a row (I can't get through that armor, have to find an easier target).

That's a nice point.

Generally it depends on the type of defender they're dealing with too. A paladin or warden? Pft, ignore their marks. A Fighter? OH HELL.

Besides, intelligent foes can have multiple tactics to choose from:

Go for the biggest threat (the damage dealer).

Go for the healer (what's the point in knocking foes down if someone pops them back up?)

Divide and Conquer - This is often a reaction if the barbarian or rogue runs ahed of everyone, but it can also be a decent tactic - dragging one PC away from the others to beat the snot out of him. Useful with controllers or lurkers. Also with traps (dropping a defender or healer into a pit).

Stall for our Trap - If you have several soldiers or brutes and skirmishers, let them just soak up a few punches, make PCs chase them - while lurkers move into position to gut a softie. A nice combo with the above tactic.

 

[The Monster]

I always take a grain of salt when I hear things like 'the GM should be the best <x> at the table.' Yeah, that's a good theoretical, maybe even a good goal, but the biggest effect I've seen with statements like that is to intimidate otherwise capable people away from GMing. But be that as it may.

I'm pretty much repeating/rephrasing what others have already said here, but the main thrust of it all is that the battlefield tactics of the NPCs should fit the NPCs - smart ones play smart, dumb ones play dumb...although I'd qualify that with aspects about role and personality: brutes are going to move in and bash, soldiers will be more canny, artillery will back away from melee whenever they can. Goblins will be shifty (pun intended), using position to best advantage, that kind of thing.
(In the same way, the roleplaying of the NPCs should fit the NPCs, according to role, importance, and personality, but I digress.)

Tactically, I'll do what feels right and natural for the situation, given the type and goals of the NPCs: in my current campaign, the fighter player noted that it was six or seven fights before he got to make a single opportunity attack...which took me a bit aback, although when I thought about it, the situations were such that provoking an OA never came up, due to several factors (primarily being the fighter pretty much ever had only engaged either melee types, or caster who were already so damaged they didn't dare provoke under any circumstances). Nevertheless, I did take care to provoke one of the very next OAs from the fighter that I could (IIRC, it was a fatal error for the NPC when the fighter rolled extremely well for damage). I do what I can to encourage the PCs to strut their stuff.

So yes, it pays to be a good tactician - not so you can outmaneuver the PCs all the time, but to be able to gauge the NPC actions and reactions according to different levels of competence and motivation. Just like roleplaying.

 

[mudlock]

If I'm roleplaying dumb goblins, I'll provoke opportunity attacks all over the place. But if I'm roleplaying the greatest general alive, then you bet your butt I'm going to try and outmanoeuvre and out-think the PC's.

Funny, because when I'm playing cowardly goblins, I'll never provoke opportunity attacks. But if I'm roleplaying the greatest general alive, then you bet your butt that I'm going to occasionally take the risk of an OA in order to outmaneuver the PCs.