| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I now it's been a while since I've posted one of these.
There are a number of reasons for this. Outside of car crashes and related injuries I've also been spending time working on outlines and popping out more articles for the actual Tactics 101 book I'm writing.
Yes, yes that is a thing I'm going to do.
I'll have more details later on but needless to say I wouldn't make anyone pay for anything I didn't think was worth it. So beyond simply expecting more of what's already there (which is being polished and revised anyway) you can expect to see more stuff for GM's and some alternate rules that make things a bit "grittier" in terms of combat (think injury systems, fatigue and what not).
If it does well we'll go from there. I have ideas but nothing solid yet. I'm not looking to suddenly become a major 3pp publisher. And honestly if I thought I could push this through Rite, FGG, or a similar name I certainly would.
But, on to a more relevant point I've decided to pack up and consolidate the mass majority of things into this blog.
So, while I won't do any major Tactics 101 articles until this book is done (As any work on those would have to go into the book) I'll certainly do some minor bits and pieces here that are easy on the brain meats.
For example the introductory post includes some misconceptions that I've seen floating around regarding combat either in the form of awful advice or the more insidious and less easy to address form called habit.
I absolutely encourage discussion on these points since a lot of it I would not necessarily call conventional wisdom so much as misinterpreted wisdom not given the proper lens of nuance I often don't find when talking about certain subjects.
In any case, look forward to it and I'll give fuller details about the book in the Compatible products forum at a later date.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will your treatise include an exposition on How To Run Away and get away with it?
It's easier without minstrels.
Just letting people know it's updated. I don't exactly have a set schedule yet but I do have a list of topics that I'm going to go over in time. Next one is angles of attacks and the one after will be the tactical role of martials.
Keep bloggin' angry Tark!
Great stuff!
Careful, typo on page 6: there/their: "over their opponent".
(couldn't find the pm function on these forums)
|
Oh, we had that choke point thing a while back. The cleric was standing in the choke point on Full Defence, getting attacked by multiple enemies, while the druid's AC couldn't get to the front line because the cleric was in the way. Worse, our enemies had archers and we didn't. And I couldn't get a clear shot with Color Spray.
That was a good lesson in why we needed to update our tactics to become group tactics rather than everyone trying to do the best individual thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many folks are strictly against tactics. They like low AC, high DPR, rushing in headlong, and trusting in the dice. Exhortations to control choke points or fight in an organized manner are seen as attempts to control their PC and ruin their fun.
@Ascalaphus - Regarding the animal companion which couldn't get up front, I've become a big fan of mounted combat partially because it helps concentrate the party's offense into a smaller number of squares. The Narrow Frame and Cavalry Formation feats could improve this even more.
|
|
We're currently exploring the swamps, so the time for mounted combat isn't there yet. Although the GM has flat-out promised us (including the guy playing a Cavalier) that swamps won't be the dominant terrain type in the campaign.
But you make an interesting point there about using mounts.
Anyway, regarding choke points: our big mistake was trusting in choke points when the enemy had enough archery to just slowly pick off our defenders. Sometimes holing up tight isn't an option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many folks are strictly against tactics. They like low AC, high DPR, rushing in headlong, and trusting in the dice. Exhortations to control choke points or fight in an organized manner are seen as attempts to control their PC and ruin their fun.
I'd find this funny if this wasn't an attitude I ran into all the time.
Many folks are strictly against tactics. They like low AC, high DPR, rushing in headlong, and trusting in the dice. Exhortations to control choke points or fight in an organized manner are seen as attempts to control their PC and ruin their fun.I'd find this funny if this wasn't an attitude I ran into all the time.
"It's no fun unless you're bleeding out!" to quote a player/a killer DM Devilkiller and I know and suffer under.
I wish there was some advice on how to deal with the problems caused by individualism, as opposed to a detailed explanation of why it is a problem. I wish you could have heard my epic in character rant about this where my wizard had to threaten the barbarian, rogue/ranger, monk and cleric with total non-participation in the fights by both the wizard and witch to get them to stop charging in round one. When I can direct traffic we can fight at APL +5 and win on the regular, when people charge willy-nilly we run from APL +2 encounters. Herding cats is an apt description.
"It's no fun unless you're bleeding out!" to quote a player/a killer DM Devilkiller and I know and suffer under.Many folks are strictly against tactics. They like low AC, high DPR, rushing in headlong, and trusting in the dice. Exhortations to control choke points or fight in an organized manner are seen as attempts to control their PC and ruin their fun.I'd find this funny if this wasn't an attitude I ran into all the time.
Full disclosure: I used to be that GM.
It took a while before I understood that "resources spent" doens't mean buckets of blood.
@Gregory Connolly - Certain players don't react well to a powerful PC who takes on the role of General and tries to issue orders to the "troops". I have a bit of the General syndrome myself and have had to learn how to get people's buy in on my grand schemes. I've also had to learn how to let other people play the way they want sometimes though I still have a hard time not offering advice.
Many folks are strictly against tactics. They like low AC, high DPR, rushing in headlong, and trusting in the dice. Exhortations to control choke points or fight in an organized manner are seen as attempts to control their PC and ruin their fun.
Well by and large it works. It also speeds up combat for the players so they can do something rather than wait 20 minutes for the other people to move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Choke points are fun when you're the PC holding the choke point. They're less fun to the PCs who are standing in the back delaying every round until they're allowed to participate again.
In the real world, with real lives on the line, everyone would use tactics and not complain that they don't get to be on the front lines. In a game, where the point is less "to win" than "to have fun," they can, in certain groups and certain situations, run counter to the point of playing.
I wish there was some advice on how to deal with the problems caused by individualism, as opposed to a detailed explanation of why it is a problem.
ME too. Trouble is there are simply too many different tables with different dynamics. Try telling people at a PFS table to work as an organized team when they're drunk, sweating, and just want to rush through the scenario so they can catch the adults only batman female villain cosplay contest in an hour.
I have discussed ways of thinking and inspiration that can draw attitutdes away from this and more towards the "team" ideal that the game calls for. But, beyond that, it's up to individual tables themselves to decide what they want.
On the other hand, I have to note that as a GM it's kind of annoying when players never try anything ballsy or outside of the box. I don't mean run around with heads cut off all the time, but I enjoy gming a bit of risk taking.
But I digress; is there any way to incorporate this with tactics?
Oh absolutely. I have a section in the book entitled "Shenanigans" that is all about tossing curveballs at the GM.
My favorite such curveball was an eberron game where the GM attempted to teach me humility with a drow monk that slew giants on a regular basis. My character (a warforged psychic warrior who thought he was an actual paladin) routinely used expansion and his halberd to trip and beat up foes with his heightened reach and height.
Also, my character worshipped the goddess of tactics. Combined with just generally not being stupid (being gigantic in a duel with a giant slayer? HMMMMMMMM) I threw a curveball at the GM by drawing a long sword and tower shield and opting for purely defensive tactics against the monk (who despite being at least 4 levels higher than me still needed like 18's to hit). Shenanigans are great but they have to be done with a measure of forethought and intelligence. Bad gm's make sudden rulings to stop shenanigans, good gm's tolerate them with a groan, great gm's actively encourage them.
@Devilkiller I am well aware how obnoxious being an armchair general is, I restrain myself far more often than I don't. That game includes one of my old friends who I have been gaming with for the last 16 years, and my wizard was created specifically to prove the point that having an arm was useful, rather than a party of hammers and anvils. He usually plays clerics in the anvil mold (lots of summoning and save or lose) and both of us are quite good at tactics, his response to disorganization is to try and solo the encounter while mine is to detach and let the GM handle it. We are also the most often GMs in the group by far and when we get to both play in a game together shenanigans always ensue.
I’d describe my own playing style as cautious and tactical. That said, I will in fact take some pretty big risks if there are story, RP, or mechanical rewards. A recent PC of mine challenged the leader of an enemy army to a single duel to avenge a broken oath and prevent a devastating mass battle. The PC was 14th level, and the enemy ended up being a 15th level Barbarian (though I wasn’t sure of his strength when I challenged him). I actually won pretty easily, but it seemed like a “ballsy” move at the time. The same PC also insisted on finishing the final dungeon of the AP in a single day despite the other PCs wanting to rest since he felt that something terrible might happen to our homeland if we let the enemy have more time (based on DM comments it sounds like he was right)
On the other hand, in a later fight another player’s seriously wounded PC charged in to attack a powerful melee monster with 15 foot reach and Grab despite the fact that two other PCs had the battle well under control and could have slain the monster in a round or two. Instead of stealing a little glory the PC ended up getting critted and dropped past negative Con. At that point we had to take a round off from killing the monsters and use a rather expensive scroll of Last Breath to bring him back to life and Dimension Door him to safety. The PC in question had a Heal spell available. He just didn’t feel like waiting to cast it before rushing in or simply standing back and letting us finish the fight. Obviously the way that player did things was more exciting for him, but it cost the party resources during a rather draining adventure, used up my PC’s “insurance policy”, and made somebody else spend their potentially “fun” turn healing somebody who got killed for being tactically foolish.
@BigNorseWolf - The PCs generally do win even without much in the way of tactics. I definitely see more PCs die along the way when folks don’t play tactically, but PCs dying and even parties losing battles entirely is part of the fun for some players.
@Joana - Regardless of tactics or lack thereof, many times it just isn’t possible for everybody to get up front and make melee attacks on the enemy, especially in larger groups. If that results in PCs skipping turns that sounds like pretty poor planning in terms of having options to deal with different situations (like what if the monsters can fly?) Regarding the differences between in game and real life decision making, some players like to get deeply “in character” and play the game almost as if their characters were real people making real decisions which could cost them their lives or fortunes. Other folks obviously find that level of immersion silly. Most groups can probably compromise a bit to make everybody happier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Joana - Regardless of tactics or lack thereof, many times it just isn’t possible for everybody to get up front and make melee attacks on the enemy, especially in larger groups. If that results in PCs skipping turns that sounds like pretty poor planning in terms of having options to deal with different situations (like what if the monsters can fly?)
It's not about everyone wanting to be in melee; it's about the enemy having total cover from the rest of the party because the guy up front who opened the door insists on standing in the doorway and 'controlling the chokepoint' rather than 5-foot-stepping and drawing the enemy out where the ranged specialists and casters have line of effect, or even line of sight.
I've been in too many low-level dungeons with 5-foot-corridors and sharp corners that resulted in the people stuck in back of the party not even seeing the battle.
Situations obviously vary, but bad tactics by the guy up front isn't a problem caused by good tactics. Going around a corner and getting stuck fighting alone doesn't sound like a great plan. On the other hand, stuff like that can happen unplanned sometimes. Most parties don't have Spring Attack, but depending on the situation Bull Rush might help. Of course everybody sorting into the right initiative order and simply moving back to a more advantageous battleground might solve it too.
On the other hand, I've also seen people let a horde of enemies surge into the room and squash the squishy PCs for no good reason. As far as I know the soft cover from having an ally between you and the enemy shouldn't result in total cover though.
As far as I know the soft cover from having an ally between you and the enemy shouldn't result in total cover though.
Total cover in the sense of a straight 5-foot-wide dungeon corridor with a door set in the side wall. The only PC who didn't have stone walls between him and the enemy was the guy who opened the door.
We kept telling the melee guy to 5-foot-step back and draw him out into the corridor, or better still back into the nearest decent-sized room, where the other players could contribute, but he was convinced that 'good tactics' required him to 'control the chokepoint' to keep the monster in the room and handle the encounter all by himself.
At best that guy is making a monster fight him one on one. That's probably not a good tactical choice unless the monster has some attack the rest of the party can't endure (maybe a really nasty gaze)
Hopefully TarkXT's advice could help such folks!
The problem I have with "tactics" is that no GM I know would give the time of day to what tactics actually are. They're essential circumstance bonuses to increase your odds. They're as simple as throwing rocks to either create a distraction or give an enemy something else to worry about. Those kinds of small adjustments have no meaning in pathfinder. If you don't hit then there's no effect whatsoever if you don't make that attack roll regardless if you were trying to hit or not. In Pathfinder, tactics is teleporting past defenses, leading someone to a trap. They're big and obvious. At most, Pathfinder gives room for up to a +2 favorable bonus. That's it. So, with such limited potential why bother? Synergize character abilities, sure, but tactics hold no particular place in the system.
The problem I have with "tactics" is that no GM I know would give the time of day to what tactics actually are. They're essential circumstance bonuses to increase your odds. They're as simple as throwing rocks to either create a distraction or give an enemy something else to worry about. Those kinds of small adjustments have no meaning in pathfinder. If you don't hit then there's no effect whatsoever if you don't make that attack roll regardless if you were trying to hit or not. In Pathfinder, tactics is teleporting past defenses, leading someone to a trap. They're big and obvious. At most, Pathfinder gives room for up to a +2 favorable bonus. That's it. So, with such limited potential why bother? Synergize character abilities, sure, but tactics hold no particular place in the system.
Tactics have lots of room in the system. If you are out of position, misplace spells, cast the wrong spell, or act out of turn you can make fights more challenging than they need to be.
One of the best tactics in the game is maximizing the action economy in the party's favor. If you can reduce the amount of actions the enemy takes, or takes directly against the party, you significantly increase the chance of the party's success.
Take the choke point example. If you step through the 5-ft door and stop, you make room for up to 14 medium creatures to attack you (5 adjacent, 9 with reach weapons) where as you can only make an attack against a few of them and your party can't really attack at all. If you had stepped backward through the door (towards your party) you force them to come to you, which makes the reverse possible. It also denies all the enemies in the room from acting against the party.
Sometimes something as simple as holding your turn until someone else has acted can have significant changes to the game. Like holding a charge until the Wizard with Toppling Magic Missile tripped the guy you're going to charge, making it easier for you to hit. Or maybe the guy with Butterfly Sting to get into position and you withhold the charge for him to transfer a crit to you.
Synergizing class abilities, feats and spells are all apart of tactics and strategy. Having a party of 4 vanilla bards is a bad strategy as none of your class abilities build off one another.
Having an Archeologist, a Thundercaller, a Dawnflower Dervish and an archer Bard of somesort is much better as the Archer and Acheologist can buff the group while the Thundercaller uses his Sound Burst and the Dawnflower buffs himself.
These are all apart of tactics and strategies of the game, and using good tactics will mean you have a team that synergizes well, while also being versatile and using proper positioning or good spells to limit the enemies actions against the party.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even the simplest choice of waiting for the enemy to move to you rather than moving up to it can be a big difference in a battle.
I recently fought a pack of ghouls in our Friday night game. Rather than move up and hit once in return for its full attack, I used a ranged attack.
And then my party charged in and got full attacked. :/
Tactics have lots of room in the system. If you are out of position, misplace spells, cast the wrong spell, or act out of turn you can make fights more challenging than they need to be.
("examples")
As I said, big and obvious.
To deny action economy is to do something flashy like cast a spell which is loud (verbal components) or has you running up and engaging in melee to do a trip or some such. While certainly "a" tactic, I'd put it on the side of bad or ill advised as far as your options go.
The same goes for choke points. "Hey, everyone! Hit me right here." is what those are.
Holding your turn is an option in executing a tactic but is not a tactic in and of itself. Otherwise, nothing would get done. That could make some story sense especially if your group doesn't care about a thing or hopes to capitalize on a moment of weakness right after an event happens. But, Pathfinder modules and APs are about saving the day preventing things from happening rather than course correcting after the fact.
Tactics employed irl mitigate needing to face your enemy head-to-head or give you advantages while actively disadvantaging your opponent with or without them knowing it. In Pathfinder, the name of the game is more or less 'kill your enemies' which requires face to face contention. GMs more often than not will force these encounters if you try to be too inventive so those efforts are often simply wasted. The most the system factors for is a +2 circumstance bonus for favorable terrain for any given thing.
I honestly don't know what you're asking for here but I don't think it's tactics in the broad sense.
Then you're not reading my posts. They are a condemnation of Pathfinder in that tactics are all locked in to engaging your enemies head on with flair being the only difference. That, sir, is not tactics in the broad sense. There are a myriad number of ways they can vary. If that's wrong, tell me how in your book. It was a subtle challenge to you for your writing.
I am reading your posts. The most I'm getting out of them is some complaint about your gm not giving you more concrete mechanical benefit to what you're doing and associating that as a system problem. Neither of which I can help. I can put the word out, but I can't make them read it.
Tactics is not doing a thing to gain mechanical advantage. Tactics is using a method to win a fight.
Subtle tactics, like throwing a rock to distract, do have mechanical advantages but like, well, literally everything about the game the actual form that advantage takes is entirely on the gm.
However something as simple as applying proper breaching techniques, keeping in a relatively tight formation to limit angles of attack to your enemy, choosing to fight a ranged battle rather than charge are all tactics.
Heck, even choosing to do nothing in order to wait for an opponent to be in a proper position to drop a series of nasty actions on them is in and of itself a tactic.
Tactics is, by definition, enacting a plan on a small scale to achieve an end. In pathfinder this can mean many things and there is plenty of depth to it, even psychological (Though I imagine that's a bit more of a controversial topic give it's talking about the psychology of your game master and how he runs things).
I am curious, have you read anything I've done?
I have not. I took it from your first post you had some one off posts and your blog. Do you have anything more all inclusive that represents your take overall?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hoo boy.
Well I put all the links on the blog in the left sidebar.
I'd start with
The Forge of Combat
Fueling the Forge
Then all the Tactics 101 stuff so far.
Ah, you're the guy who wrote that guide. What was I thinking? Take care.
|
|
@FanaticRat: I hear you. There's something about detailed rule systems that causes this mental change in players.
If players know the mechanics to do A, B and C, they'll ignore D - it won't even occur to them. But players who don't really know the mechanics just say "I wanna do D, what do I roll?"
I do think a flexible GM and a good game system can catch some of this; it's important that when someone does try D, you don't say "you can't do that, there's no rules for that". That teaches players to not even bother.
Updated it with the first part about the tactical role of martials.
I think there's too much focus on what caster's do and martial's can't and not enough on how they actually function within the context of the game.
I would disagree a bit with you on the "Last in Initiative is the Same as Going First."
Espcially in later levels.
Going first give syou the option to go firat but you might not always want it. Charging up to this massive 8 armed monster becuas eyou got to go first can be suicide. Waiting for it to come to you so it gets one attack it a better idea. In fact he bested a monster like this by the whole party attack first and then provoking and walking away to take two hits a round vs 8.
Also my gnome heavens oracle does not need a good inative, his low movement and the 15 foot cone limit him. Being last means he now can walk up and knock out a good chunk of bad guys in color spray formation.
Understand why you may not want to go first is a big advantage
If this is the case you can just hold your action or ready one.
Yet another advantage of high initiative is that you are in control of when you go. It doesn't have to be first.
|
|
I would disagree a bit with you on the "Last in Initiative is the Same as Going First."
Espcially in later levels.
Going first give syou the option to go firat but you might not always want it.
That's why going first is even better than going last.
If you go last, you don't get to make the choice of going first when you want to.