What are your party's combat tactics?

Anybody seen Ghostbusters?

Ray: "GET HER!!!"
(ghost chases them away)
later:
Peter: "'Get her,' Ray? That was your whole plan. 'Get her.'"

No, to be fair, the party I DM has begun using some decent tactics. They flank (due to the urging of their Rgr/Rog), and they got into the Mountain Door of Forge of Fury in a remarkable display of sneakiness, wit, and willingness to stand up to arrow fire (lol).

Mostly, though, they walk along until they're attacked, and then fight back. Once they're in combat, it seems like like every man or woman for themselves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The monk races into combat, using his superior speed to get in the middle of the foe, then gets tagged by all of them and stumbles away from the enemy and the party to spend the rest of the fight ineffectually wandering about. Nothing from him, not even a slung stone from a safe distance.

The Barbarian/Fighter/Wizard buffs with "Expeditious Assault" and True Strike, then charges into combat and has his horse killed before he actually gets to the fight.

"Stumpy" the dwarver cleric makes a 5-ft step, casts a full round spell and gets tagged by an enemy archer, then loses his spell.

The Rogue/Ranger, anticipating someone will help him flank, tumbles into position, then is left hanging.

The PsyWar uses his advanced speed to be the sole hittable target after the monk gets toasted. He then slumbers through half the combat with his Improved Biofeedback + Animal Affinity (Str) + Expansion turning 12+ points of damage per hit into "sleepyhead" damage. Alternately, he does really well at healing since he gets twice as much back. The other outcome is he gets tagged with a lucky Dispel and he's a sub-par fighter.

The Fighter/Sorcerer launches a few magic missiles, never once having lost a spell to arcane spell failure chances. He then wades into combat and deals out horrific damage with his greatclub. On paper, he's the weakest of the mainline fighters, but in practice he's death on a stick.

When things do go well, they go really well. The PsyWar, the Barbarian/Fighter/Wizard and the Fighter/Sorcerer all have Cleave and can mash medium-size foes into gooey bits in an amazingly short time.

If we could get the monk to shoot himself in the foot and Stumpy to concentrate on quicker spells, we'd see some vast improvement. Most of our "tactical" failures revolve around not getting flank bonuses and burning too many spells on buff instead of heal/damage. There's a fine line where buff spells can bring your enemy to dead before he gets you and where you cast so many buffs a Dispel ruins all your options.

Greg
 

It's eye-opening in this thread to see how the majority of responses are either "no tactics" or "awful tactics". This is usually combined with the assertion that the party never actually sits down and tries to organize as a team.

It reinforces a problem that I've seen in almost every gaming group I've played with. For effective tactics you really need to have a leader -- someone who organizes the group in advance, and more importantly, in a deadly situation, someone whom everyone by default is willing to listen to (since the alternatives are (a) everyone act in a disorganized fashion according to their immediate whims, or (b) find the time in a fight to sit down and have a vote on the next step of action).

It's funny, because all the original AD&D sources mentioned, assumed, and gave examples for a member of the party to be designated as the "caller" or "leader" in default circumstances. But, no one actually like to play this way, and perhaps understandably so, because everyone wants to equally be the center of attention in the game, and to have a memorable and unique "character". No matter how hard or diplomatically I try to encourage a particular leader in any party, everyone always picks completely opposed personalities and alignments, and everyone goes running in their own direction during a fight.

The common lack of tactics may be a side-effect of over-emphasis on the role-play to the detriment of the game. It may not even be fixable.
 


On second thoughts, Dragonstar has made my PC's think about tactics very seriously. Quote: "28 points of damage! From a single shot! Eeeek!" And then promptly died. :D
 

Wow, reading this thread has made me feel a little better about my own parties lack of tactics and group cohesiveness. :D

Well, we're not too bad I guess, we do usually remember to flank and attack from higher ground. But other than that we tend to lack the ability to work together especially well.

Fighter (6): Weapon-master hopeful with a scimitar. Now that she has Whirlwind Attack, she wades in to where ever she can attack the most foes. Usually manages to walk back out at the end of the fight because of the Haste bonus to AC that I give her.

Fighter (4): Straight forward character with a bastard sword & shield. Uses a composite longbow at range and then charges in on his warhorse, or on foot.

Cleric (4): Usually doesn't do any real buffing (which he really should) other than a Bull's Strength on himself or one of the fighters. Other than that, he just wades in and bashes things with his heavy mace until someone needs healing.

Cleric (3)/Rogue (1)/Fighter(1): Again we have a cleric whose only buff spell consists of Bull's Strength, and usually only casts it on himself. He a will attack from range with his mighty composite shortbow for the first couple of rounds, then runs up and uses his Quicker than the Eye feat to bluff opponents and sneak attack them. Frankly, I don't know why he didn't just get tumble and sneak attack by flanking things. But then again this guy does plenty of things that I'll never understand.

Wizard(Necromancer) (6)[me]: I lead off combat generally by casting fly on myself, followed by Spectral Hand and Haste on the Fighter (6). Then I'll let loose with various offensive spells and an occasianal defensive spell if someone (usually me) needs it.

Overall, I think that dcollins' theory applies to us really well, we have no clear party leader (although we do have a rotational system for a 'tie-breaker' postion when deciding courses of action), and most of the players act independently as everyone tries to be a star. In all fairness the fighter (4) mostly plays as a support character, but as a fighter he can't contribute much more than flanking positions. As for myself, I originally planned to play the support role almost exclusively, but for the first few levels I was the only dependable player, which caused me to have to focus more on my offensive abilities, plus the fact that as a Necromancer, half of all my spells gained from leveling up are Necromancy, which is a school that has little in the way of buff/utility spells. Also, since I'm the only survivng original character with the most NPC contacts/allies and ties to the campaign world, and the fact that my character has a very powerful sense of personal destiny, I tend to focus alot on ensuring my own survival (a difficult task with an AC of 14.:mad: ).
 


Hmm... of the two games I DM, neither party really seems to use group tactics incredibly well.

In my PbeM game, an NPC dwarven ranger finally made a comment to the party that they're great warriors, but use the strangest tactics. They're currently in a pretty tough fight, and finally one of them is trying to organize a group strategy - not that everyone seems to be listening though.

In my face to face game, things go a bit better.

I think it's mostly a matter of being able to talk back and forth quicker in person than in email. I tend to get the impression in my email game that the players don't read the other characters' actions and just go with what's best right now.
 

Each of our party members came to the table with his own tactics and we've been developing some group tactics on the fly. Of course, we are playing RttToEE, so the learning curve has been sort of steep ;)

So far we've cleared the moathouse useing these tactics:
1. Psion goes invisible and begins summoning astral constructs.
2. Paladin rushes in (and pays for it)
3. Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer shoots into melee with true strike, then casts shield and moves to a flanking position with his spiked chain and dirty fighting (guess which character is mine :D )
 

Actually, we lack combat tactics quite a bit. At least we haven't got any distinctive ones; we're lying more of yelling such things as "move on to the other side, stupid", "that's my enemy, you fsck!", etc. Well, perhaps we should work it out a li'l... ;)
 

Remove ads

Top