D&D 5E Tactics in combat

[Kikuras]

Yes well I've openly admitted to using the rules as guidelines. But, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying here's why I do it: First I use it to encourage people to play to their character. I shouldn't have to, but when Joe creates the most learned, bookish, well-read character you can, I don't want him to constantly get shown up by Bob the Barbarian just 'cause Bob happens to get lucky on his rolls. Second: I want the party to feel like, while at times they may have strokes of inspiration, they are dependent on each other for different things. Sure, anyone can forage for food, but the ranger forages for food better, so it's best to let the ranger forage while the rest of the party sets up camp or does other things.

It's too easy for players to get it in their heads that they don't need anyone else around and a good roll can replace a good party member.

Obviously there requires a balance of allowing characters to play their roles, and also for players to make their rolls.

In my current party most of us try and discus who should make the attempt at a skill, even if failure is not dangerous, because it's logical for party members to look to the 'expert' first (even if they're not an expert on paper). Meanwhile our sorcerer is spamming his d20 because 'why not'?

Me, I'm more of a 'many doors enter into one room'. A barbarian and a wizard (int) might both have knowledge on owlbears, one from books, and one from tribal stories (survival or nature). The fighter might have know something (athletics?) of orcs, as he and his buddies discus the powerful orc body while at the gym. Rogues might get a clue to a dragon's blindsight because word on the street is you can't rob a dragon because he can see you even when he's blind (stealth?)

 

[KarinsDad]

This is the relevant rule from 4e.

Monster Knowledge Checks
Refer to these rules whenever a character makes a check to identify a monster, regardless of the knowledge skill he or she is using. The DM typically tells a player which skill to use, based on the creature’s origin or relevant keyword. If a monster’s origin and keyword suggest the use of two different skills, the DM decides which skill can be used to identify the monster, and might allow the use of either skill.
For example, a dracolich is both a natural creature and undead, but the DM might decide that its being undead is more relevant than its natural origin and require the use of Religion. In contrast, an abyssal ghoul is an elemental undead creature, and the DM might allow the use of either Arcana or Religion.

✦ Action: No action. A character either knows or doesn't know the information.
✦ DC: The DM sets the DC using the Difficulty Class by Level table (page 126), selecting the moderate DC for the monster’s level instead of the level of the character making the check.
✦ Success: The character identifies the monster and knows its origin, type, typical temperament, and keywords. If the character meets or exceeds the hard DC for the monster’s level, he or she also knows the monster’s resistances and vulnerabilities, as well as what its powers do.
✦ Failure: The character doesn't recall any pertinent information about the monster. The Dungeon Master might allow a new check if further information comes to light.


I would change that to something like.
✦ Action: No action. A character either knows or doesn't know the information.
✦ DC: The DM sets the DC using 10+ 1/2 the Monster's CR rating, modified by rarity as he sees fit.
✦ Success: The character identifies the monster and knows its origin, type, typical temperament, and keywords. If the character exceeds the DC by 5, he or she also knows the monster’s resistances and vulnerabilities, as well as what its powers do.
✦ Failure: The character doesn't recall any pertinent information about the monster. The Dungeon Master might allow a new check if further information comes to light.

So for a Fire Giant.
DC = 14
With a 14-18 result they know giant type, lawful evil, and know the general information like they keep hell hounds as pets and lair near volcanoes.
With a 19+ they know it has fire immunity and great Con saves.

I think 4E is what put me off on knowledge checks. They were too generous (which seems implausible). Part of the reason was because monster "class" (or whatever you want to call it, profession, job, tendency; e.g. Goblin Cutter vs. Goblin Slinger) was (at least according to a strict reading of the rules) something that PCs could easily know about. It wasn't necessarily just racial information. And powers??? Seriously?

I have no problem with some information, it's just this idea of knowing their name, origin, keywords, etc. It seemed like an episode of Grimm, but the PCs have a ton of info on most of the monsters in their heads as opposed to in a book in Nick's trailer. It kind of defeats the purpose of having NPC Sages in the game.

 

[Sunseeker]

Obviously there requires a balance of allowing characters to play their roles, and also for players to make their rolls.

In my current party most of us try and discus who should make the attempt at a skill, even if failure is not dangerous, because it's logical for party members to look to the 'expert' first (even if they're not an expert on paper). Meanwhile our sorcerer is spamming his d20 because 'why not'?

Me, I'm more of a 'many doors enter into one room'. A barbarian and a wizard (int) might both have knowledge on owlbears, one from books, and one from tribal stories (survival or nature). The fighter might have know something (athletics?) of orcs, as he and his buddies discus the powerful orc body while at the gym. Rogues might get a clue to a dragon's blindsight because word on the street is you can't rob a dragon because he can see you even when he's blind (stealth?)

Sure, and I think that goes beyond the roll itsself. That sort of stuff depends on exactly what they're asking about. A survival check might tell you that Orcs poison their traps. A nature check might tell you Orcs always live and camp near caves. An arcana check might tell you that Orcs are shamanistic. But the specific details of those things depend on how you ask your question, there's a big difference between: "where to orcs camp" and "I search my memory for that one time I kept coming across orc camps that were...."


That sorcerer might find out that Orc stool is a useful herbal remedy for the Elven flu.

 

[Kikuras]

In many ways the difference is fact vs lore. I skipped 4e, so I don't know how any of that worked, but in other editions when we'd try and check our knowledge base, the DM usually provided us with hints, maybes, and 'you heard once that...". And sometimes he would throw in some convincing misdirects on a failure (because even when I meta-game I can't remember everything in the MM). Too much information took the fun out of confirming myth and discovering new truths. What color is orc blood? Let's find out...

 

[pemerton]

It kind of defeats the purpose of having NPC Sages in the game.

To be fair, NPC sages aren't a big part of 4e! They do appear in MME, where they provide a bonus to knowledge skill checks - which means they complement the monster knowledge rules rather than being displaced by them.

 

[KarinsDad]

To be fair, NPC sages aren't a big part of 4e! They do appear in MME, where they provide a bonus to knowledge skill checks - which means they complement the monster knowledge rules rather than being displaced by them.

Maybe not, but they were a part of 1E. An aspect of 1E that I still like. It was also a way for PCs to spend gold back then. Find out about Black Dragons and their lairs before going to one.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I actually misremembered 5e having a very similar section to 4e on monster lore checks. First World problem: too many game books...

Checking 5e's skill section we have references to knowing about animals or monsters in the arcana ("inhabitants of other planes"), nature and survival skills. Survival actually mentions identifying owlbear tracks.

Obviously, your concept of your campaign world and the presence of monsters in it are a huge factor in the appropriateness of monster lore checks. Though I do think if you want to maintain an air of mystery you probably shouldn't just grab bog-standard baddies from the MM.

Still, the thread is on the complexity of tactics in D&D rather than monster lore. My point was that identifying the strengths and weaknesses of enemies through skills, spells or careful observation is a valid (perhaps essential) endeavor and one that holds true in D&D.

A subset of this as mentioned previously (by iserith, I believe) is knowing the goals of your enemies (or at least giving the PCs and their enemies goals other than wiping the other side out). Knowing that the carrion crawler just wants food means that the party might be able to distract it with Ye Olde Ren Faire Turkey Leg. Knowing that the goblins are demoralized from the harsh treatment of their green dragon overlord means they might be primed to break and run--or turn traitor.

Some DMs might be free with this information ("the carrion crawler hungers for all in its path!" or "the goblins attack half-heartedly, falling back into defensive postures more often than not"), others might call for a check to get it or force the PCs to happen upon the intel naturally.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Think of how to distract foes, how to divide them, and how to prepare special attacks.

This is what I've seen most often once the party's wizard gets some decent crowd control spells: grease, web, wall of X, stinking cloud.

Spells that divide the battlefield, or affect the enemies' potential movement can have a huge effect on a battle.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

What color is orc blood? Let's find out...

Funny you should mention that!. Something I'm doing in my spare time is making hand outs of various bits of monster lore for players like a sheet torn from a lorebook. I pick the best stuff from various sources, rewrite some, then toss in some sketches from the web.

Not even an orc’s blood is uniform from tribe to tribe, some have a blackish brown ichor running through their veins with others having orange or green tinged, but otherwise red blood.

Redacted the images since Enworld seems to be a for profit venture.

 

[Leatherhead]

What's missing from D&D tactics?

All the basic concepts are there: surprise, focusing fire, flanking, cover and concealment, use of terrain to separate or compact enemy formations, team synergies, resource management, using stealth for reconnaissance, monster lore for enemy assessments, and all that's without cracking a single spellbook.

What's missing from tactics are the players, and/or the DM. Some people like to believe using anything other than the simple "Tank and Spank" is a rules exploit (which is ironic, considering it's an exploit in itself), other people just don't like to think and just want so smash or burn everything in their sight.