Tactics and Formations

[memesis]

I've seen a large number of threads devoted to "is this balanced" or "is this spell enough" and so forth. I haven't seen a lot of threads that deal with the capabilities of the party as a unit, rather than a set of individuals with cool capabilities. So I'm starting one, and hoping it doesn't die a miserable death

What are some useful team tactics people have used? Good formations, for various situations? Do any groups even use organized formations, or just run around the terrain at random?

I've started working out tactics for my own group, mostly in self-defense (our party isn't suitable to fight much of anything with an equivalent EL), but I'm interested in seeing what else people have found that works well.

 

[Umbran]

I personally don't find much use in "formations", per se. Formations are generally for masses of troops, rather than for a handful.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

From what I've seen, parties that stick together stay alive longest. The most common "formation" my players have used is to put the spellcasters in the middle, and have the stronger fighters taking the front, with an archer in back. Its actually done really well for them so far.....*evil grin*...so far...

 

[JDragon]

I think it depends on the players.

I know from some of the story hours that I have read groups have developed formations/planned tactics and they made a diffrence. Where as other just seem to charge in and do their thing, sometimes working togther.

The thing is for a lot of groups even if they have a plan it doesn't seem to make it much past breaking down/slipping in the door.

Part of this is the whole "no plan survive contact with the enemy" theory and in the game people very offten want to be heroic. So standing behind the fighter healing him doesn't really do that.

Lastly to me formations work better where someone is told follow this guys orders or you are in trouble, in most D&D games this is not the case. Everyone is of a free mind and not beholden (excpet maybe for out of respect) to any other individual so they don't do what they are told.

JDragon "Who hopes some of this made sense. "

 

[Tonguez]

Fighting Pairs is the best tactic I've seen (ie everyone has a Partner an must keep the Partner alive)

The standard melee at front - Archer at back covering the spellcaster formnation works too

 

[Carnifex]

I agree with Tonguez - Fighting Pairs (Sorry I can't remember who originally posted the tactic) is one of the better tactics I've seen posted.

I personally think that tactics and strategies have their uses, but you have to be flexible - no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Sometimes in combats things get a little confused and out of hand, and it all comes down to each individual doing his best.

 

[memesis]

The thing is for a lot of groups even if they have a plan it doesn't seem to make it much past breaking down/slipping in the door.

Part of this is the whole "no plan survive contact with the enemy" theory and in the game people very offten want to be heroic. So standing behind the fighter healing him doesn't really do that.

Lastly to me formations work better where someone is told follow this guys orders or you are in trouble, in most D&D games this is not the case. Everyone is of a free mind and not beholden (excpet maybe for out of respect) to any other individual so they don't do what they are told.

JDragon "Who hopes some of this made sense. "

Thanks for replying, everyone

The problem our group was ran into was "this PARTY will not survive contact with the enemy", more often than not, so they've basically delegated combat command to the best fighter (my PC). So (hopefully) solo "heroic" actions will be used when necessary, not just when a player feels like going for glory. So far that's been the case.

We also are fortunate to have a cleric/paladin played by a guy who explicitly wanted to play a healer... not so fortunate that he multiclassed to paladin for that, but so it goes

 

[Olive]

i said other: i think that tactics are important, but i also think that players should eb able to chose them, and all to often i've seen one player telling the others what spell to cast, or where to move, or what weapon to use. even when the 'boss' player is right, it's galling for the others (who are generally less experienced).

 

[memesis]

i said other: i think that tactics are important, but i also think that players should eb able to chose them, and all to often i've seen one player telling the others what spell to cast, or where to move, or what weapon to use. even when the 'boss' player is right, it's galling for the others (who are generally less experienced).

This personally annoys me, and I tend to follow Kant's imperative, so in-game I generally limit things to "attack that target" or "secure this objective", and let the individual player work out whatever it is they want to do in order to make it happen. The other half of this sort of play is that I understand what the other players like to do and prefer to do, and provided I respect that, everybody tends to get along well. This group is special in that it seems that everyone has a very strong "niche" they want to fill.

 

[DM with a vengence]

My party does not use especially good tactics, but what I have found to be the best is.

Everybody agrees that they are to check the next door.
Rogue opens door.
Wizard tosses a fireball in if there are a large number of enemies.
Archer opens fire from behind.
Fighter and Cleric charge in.
Rogue and Bard/Rogue move into flanking positions and sneak attack.

In a stand up fight or ambush, the Fighter and Cleric take the front lines, the Rogues go around the back, the Archer covers the wizard, and the wizard lays down spells.

The worst tactic is exploring on your own. It's one thing to scout if you have high stealth skills, but a fighter in full plate deciding to see what's ahead when everybody is setting up camp deserves whatever he gets.