D&D 5E Tactics in combat

[Uchawi]

From a mechanics standpoint most of the interesting tactic choices are found in spells or magic items. I wish there were more options placed in the hands of martial characters like maneuvers.

 

[exile]

4E was all about tactical combat (actually, there was more to it than that; but it did tactical combat very well). Flanking was very important. Many powers could be used to manipulate enemy position. You had to gauge carefully when to use daily and encounter powers vs at-will powers. Focusing fire (and maybe knowing when not to focus fire) was key. It played (or could easily play) a lot like a tactical miniatures game. I like it. I still do. But I don't get to play it often.

In Pathfinder, which I also play and like, tactics seem more often to boil down to which spells to prepare and when to cast them; which items to buy and when to use them. My friends and I did make a special forces type of group for Pathfinder Society play. They all had darkvision, wore Goz masks (to see through fog, mist, etc.), and used a lot of darkness and obscuring mist spells. Basically, they took visibility which seems more often to be used against characters and turned it against all of those NPC monsters. Fun group, though probably frustrating for a lot of the DMs with whom we played.

With 5E, which I also like, I am playing with a group that seems mostly either new to gaming or casual in their approach to the game. I have played both a human cleric and now a human two-weapon fighter. Most of our tactics seem to boil down to trading blows with the enemies. Some thought goes into target selection, but that's about it. hen I was playing the cleric, I had to give some thought as to when to cast bless (a remarkable spell in this edition).

 

[Nebulous]

From a mechanics standpoint most of the interesting tactic choices are found in spells or magic items. I wish there were more options placed in the hands of martial characters like maneuvers.

Dungeon Crawl Classics handled this really well with the Fighter class, he could just do "stuff" on the fly with special dice. I think the 5e battlemaster might be similar but I'm not completely sure, i haven't seen it in play yet.

 

[Eric V]

Who fights giants and lives to tell about it? Who fights dragons and lives to tell about it? Who fights bulettes or purple worms or death knights or vampires or invisible stalkers?

Other adventurers, no? In the history of the game world, other adventurers have fought these things, survived, and made sure the knowledge gets passed down to the next generation for further use. Unless you are running a campaign where the PCs are the only adventurers who have ever been, I'm not sure why this is so weird.

And how does this knowledge get passed down? Word of mouth, or does a PC have to go to adventuring college to learn about this stuff? None of the backgrounds in the PHB mention adventuring college.

No, but I can't see why this knowledge wouldn't get passed around the way any other knowledge gets passed around. They may not be dubbed "Adventurer's Colleges" per se, but you can bet that any university in, say, Geoff or Sterich in the Greyhawk world has pretty comprehensive knowledge of giants, given their history. Attending the university of magical arts in Greyhawk proper certainly gives the opportunity to make knowledge checks about a whole range of magical creatures, etc.

 

[iserith]

Not until 4E came out.

Logically, PCs should have little knowledge of monsters except first hand experience. Monsters kill people, even other adventurers. So who came back and told everyone about all of the monsters? And if someone did, how come the stories are not distorted as time goes on and they are told and retold? There might be quite a bit of knowledge on common monsters like goblins and orcs, but most monsters shouldn't be common. Or at least in most campaigns I've ever been a part of.

It's a lot easier to say "Yes" when you stop looking for reasons to say "No." The uncertainty of whether a character knows something about a monster is covered by an appropriate ability check.

Part of the fun for some players is to find out what happens as it happens. Knowing ahead of time is like knowing the answer to a murder mystery. Takes some of the fun out for some players.

Players like that won't ask to see if their character can recall any helpful lore about monsters then. This is a non-issue.

 

[Nebulous]

Other adventurers, no? In the history of the game world, other adventurers have fought these things, survived, and made sure the knowledge gets passed down to the next generation for further use. Unless you are running a campaign where the PCs are the only adventurers who have ever been, I'm not sure why this is so weird.



No, but I can't see why this knowledge wouldn't get passed around the way any other knowledge gets passed around. They may not be dubbed "Adventurer's Colleges" per se, but you can bet that any university in, say, Geoff or Sterich in the Greyhawk world has pretty comprehensive knowledge of giants, given their history. Attending the university of magical arts in Greyhawk proper certainly gives the opportunity to make knowledge checks about a whole range of magical creatures, etc.

I'd imagine that in a some library in a large city, there would be a book completely about Monsters, their habitats, their weaknesses and strengths and vulnerabilities and even magical secrets. In a more remote area without access to that, the locals probably know about the resident flora and fauna and can impart some information. I've found this is trickier when the heroes are in the Underdark meeting some unknown creature for the first time and trying to roll Knowledge checks against something they can't even identify what kind of lifeform it is. Then I usually either say "you just don't know" or the DC is very, very high.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Can you reference the rules on hitting a comrade that might be providing cover?

It is an optional rule in the DMG but for ranged attacks only.

 

[Shiroiken]

From a mechanics standpoint most of the interesting tactic choices are found in spells or magic items. I wish there were more options placed in the hands of martial characters like maneuvers.

During the playtest, packet 2 IIRC, had a very interesting concept. You had casters, which used spells, and non-casters, which used martial dice. Most class features were Maneuvers that used these dice, allowing you to customize your character's abilities, just like spellcasters do with spell selection. While they didn't implement it well beyond low levels (they made quadratic fighters), the concept was very neat.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), they realized they were making the same mistake as 4E. They were essentially making a new game, rather than expanding and revising the existing game. This didn't fit with their goal of bringing together players of all editions so it was eventually revised down to just the fighter, and then just the Battlemaster. IMO, the final version is nowhere near as interesting, but I understand the reasons. I think they made the right decision for D&D, but I wouldn't mind seeing another RPG use the original concept.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't put tasks behind a proficiency door, anyone can try anything. The section in the rules is Ability Checks not proficiency checks.

The only place in the whole rules system where it mentions not allowing someone to try anything they want is under the description of locks and manacles, so I see that being a very odd exception to the norm since it is pretty obscure.

Anyone can try to pick a pocket, climb a wall, play a harp, know about arcane things, or intimidate people. Now if you have proficiency there are plenty of occasions where I wouldn't even ask for a roll, a bard with perform and harp tool proficiency can just explain he is entertaining the tavern for the night and if he doesn't want to impress a young lady or noble doesn't need to roll.

Like you, I let anyone try anything, as I believe that is the RAI.

However, I think that applies to ability checks. Things that can only be accomplished via a tool proficiency are not intended to be accomplished unless you are trained with the tool. Hence the locks and manacles.

On the other hand (its murky) a horse is a tool. And I let people ride them.

 

[Leatherhead]

Maybe, but would it be something useful for combat?

And what does "trained in the respective area" mean? Maybe clerics might know some things about undead, but giants? Who fights giants and lives to tell about it? Who fights dragons and lives to tell about it? Who fights bulettes or purple worms or death knights or vampires or invisible stalkers?

And how does this knowledge get passed down? Word of mouth, or does a PC have to go to adventuring college to learn about this stuff? None of the backgrounds in the PHB mention adventuring college.

I would think that a lot of "monster knowledge" would be distorted by the passage of time, fire side exaggerated tales, etc. It really does not make sense that PCs would be experts on monsters until they actually face them (and maybe even not then if the PCs stun lock them or some such).

I didn't see this post at first, but there is in fact a logical answer for 5e:

Volo's guides.
FR literally had (has?) a publication that went around to catalog and describe all the weirdo monsters and stuff in the Realms for adventurers.

Heck, there are even the Van Richten's Guides for Ravenloft, of all places!