Flanking
We’ve done 610 comics at this point. The voluminous pages of the Handbook of Heroes have covered topics ranging from special snowflake one-shots to secret horse identity. Yet somehow, amidst all the dungeons and the dragons and the murders and the hobos, we haven’t talked about flanking. On behalf of the writing team, I would like to apologize for the oversight. Those responsible have been sacked.
Speaking as a GM, I quite enjoy a bit of tactical positioning. Getting a nice bonus for setting up my dudes strategically always struck me as smart design. After all, if we’re going to eschew the fluidity of theater of the mind it makes sense to leverage the grid for all it’s worth. The interesting decisions that come with circling around behind the party, cutting off their escape routes, and surrounding the vulnerable wizards and clerics make for a lovely waltz of move and countermove.
Speaking as a player, however, I find that the waltz breaks down into freestlying in a hurry. Where a GM can move many tokens with a single, unifying plan, players have a tougher time of it. That has a little something to do with the principles we talked about way back in our quarterbacking comic. Setting up a flank with another flesh and blood player requires you to verbally discuss the maneuver. Someone has to say, “Hey, why don’t you move over there on your turn?” And as Thief is discovering in today’s comic, that can feel uncomfortably like telling another warrior how to do his job.
Case in point, my Dead Suns party found themselves in a difficult fire fight last session. Surrounded by incorporeal baddies and minus one Starfinder thanks to some improbably bad hold person saves, they were being outmaneuvered by the forces of evil.
“Alright,” says yours truly. “The first oblivion shade spawn is going to move, then ready an action to attack. The second shade will skirt around to set up the flank. When shade 2 gets into position, shade 1 will take her readied action, thus allowing both baddies to get the +2 flanking bonus to hit.”
There was a moment of irate silence as my players absorbed this maneuver. Then, as one: “That’s bullshit!”
If you’ve ever played in the d20 system, you already know that there was nothing illegal about this move. What’s interesting though is the de facto unfairness of the situation that my players (correctly) spotted. It would feel like some odd species of metagaming if the party talked the same sequence out amongst themselves. The aforementioned quarterbacking would rear its head. Terms like “table talk” and objections like “you wouldn’t have time to discuss this in the heat of battle” enter the conversation. And upon reflection, I’d have to concede the point to my players. It is decidedly odd that the social conditions of play make strategic positioning more difficult for players than for GMs.
What do the rest of you guys think? Is this an accurate insight? And if so, are you OK with pausing the flow of play for in-depth discussions of which-square-should-I-stand-in? Or does it feel weird micromanaging the teams’ decisions in the name of maximum effectiveness? How do you handle this biz at your table? Give us all your most opinionated gamer opinions down in the comments!
ADD SOME NSFW TO YOUR FANTASY! If you’ve ever been curious about that Handbook of Erotic Fantasy banner down at the bottom of the page, then you should check out the “Quest Giver” reward level over on The Handbook of Heroes Patreon. Twice a month you’ll get to see what the Handbook cast get up to when the lights go out. Adults only, 18+ years of age, etc. etc.
I feel that arranging flanking in combat is perfectly fair. In-universe, it’s probably explained in different terms, but calling out things like “Get behind them!” or “We’ll come at it from opposite sides to throw it off!” won’t break my immersion unless you’re staying hidden, holding your breath or otherwise unable to communicate. Sure, it’s a dirty trick to try to stab someone in the back, but you don’t get sneak attacks by fighting fair.
On a related note, I discovered a while back that having your stealthy sniper-rogue also be the party tactician isn’t the best idea – it turns out shouting out orders and keeping your location hard to guess don’t mix.
The person most dependent on tactical positioning doesn’t get to discuss tactical positioning. That’s a tough break.
I always liked the whole, “We aren’t actually discussing this out loud,” justification. It’s usually followed by, “We worked out a few basic plays around the campfire last night.”
that’s why my Rogues buy a wand of Message CL(number of party members) early on.
get a wand of massage instead. you’ll be much more popular
Pretty sure that’s a comic for the other handbook…
Here’s my thoughts:
1) in-universe, the PCs want to win, whether that’s defeating the enemies or sneaking past or some other objective
2) in-universe, the PCs would have a pretty good idea of their party members’ abilities, unless they just met or someone is deliberately hiding stuff
3) therefore, it makes sense in-universe to strategize together
That can be as simple as “hey, fastball me at the dragon!” or “if someone gets in close, I can sneak attack” or it can be as specific as having preplanned teamwork moves with readied actions
I tend to be a strategist at the table, but I haven’t had much trouble with other people feeling like I’m overbearing (as far as I know, at least!) because I mostly phrase things as “if you/someone does X, then we can do Y” or “are you able to hit this enemy / do this type of damage, I think [explanation]”—rather than saying “do this thing” I try to bring the other players in to strategize with me and tell me what they think, and I try to give suggestions rather than orders
I think that effects like telepathic bond…
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/telepathic-bond/
…Exist specifically to keep players from having to rationalize quite so hard. I personally like a bit of table talk, and I think the way you frame it as suggestions rather than demands is a solid practice.
I would say that an elite group of trained soldiers or commando or other combat unit would have these kind of strategies practiced over and over their training. A hive mind like creature, or telepathic ones could also come off with this shenanigan; simply due to the fact that “I attack when they’re looking at you” is a totally plausible tactic.
However it would seem unlikely from peasants who grab a pitchfork, or from races that are infamous of their internal squabbling and backstabbing nature.
And from the players’ perspective: allow this kind of stuff for characters that grew up together or trained together (e.g. via backstory). And for the rest of them, point it out that they can most definitely try to come up with team strategies / team attacks that their characters practice together during downtime. It might as well serve as another opportunity to forge them into a team.
…and if your party is infamous of their cutthroat backstabbing playstyle, well, it’s on them then, really.
To play devil’s advocate: “So what? Table talk is only allowed if we have the right backstory?”
points at the section starting “and for the rest of the team”
With the right backstory your characters are trained to do that from day 0. If you have different backstories, your characters can invent and build it up for themselves – but you can’t expect two people who just met in a tavern to already know about each others’ abilities and weaknesses. That would kill the IMMERSION!!!! 😛
I agree that micromanaging each others moves can feel bad, especially if it grows significant.
But a bit of suggestions from time to time can be perfectly alright in my opinion, don’t do it every turn, be polite and don’t push if they do something else are a good starting point. Like always context matters so keep an eye on the mood.
For flanking itself it’s usually not a significant problem for my groups, we tend to have enough baseline awareness of tactics to that everybody does their part to set it up (plus everybody likes getting those +2 to hit even folks that don’t get sneak attack or another extra benefit on top).
The “ready an action to attack” tactic you described is something I wouldn’t normally do as a GM for much the same reasons you point out, but I might do it as a demonstration that a particular group of enemies have a truly exceptional amount of training and coordination.
Another aspect of this of-course is that the classic GM shorthand of just rolling one imitative for each kind of enemy instead of each individual enemy makes this easier, so if I’m going to want to do these sort of thing I’d consider instead rolling separate initiatives for that encounter.
I have pulled off the trick once from the other side as a player though, without any tabletalk even. It just happened to be a battle where the next person in the turn order was another melee combatant while there only where one enemy available for us to fight and I had enough movement to get behind them. Wasn’t too difficult for me to deduce what my ally would do next turn and set up to take advantage of that.
That’s a good point. With each of the incorporeal creatures in my example rolling on the same initiative, readying an action comes without penalty. That is another potentially unfair advantage between the two sides of the screen.
Some PC strategies are fine, if they are acting upon what they can see. Flanking to the other side of your enemy is an obvious good move. The problem in the example above is the future knowledge of what will be done by an ally, as it requires communication, be it a set-piece tactic or a quick “Let’s hammer and anvil them!”.
On the other hand, telepathic enemies (like meenlocks) can cheat on this rule, if it helps them.
But that communication is only literally present at the table on the players’ side. GM just does it, which gives rise to those unfair feels.
Maybe it’s down to verbalizing the move? “The creatures shriek, hitting a specific series of notes that make your skin crawl. Then they begin to move almost as one, etc. etc.”
I may have mentioned this on a previous comic, but I work on the assumption that we only really get to witness a small part of the characters lives; we (mostly) skip over the evenings sat by the camp fire or in the tavern, and long days on the road, to get to the fun stuff. Therefore I figure that a lot of the in-game planning that occurs at the table is not so much happening ‘in the moment’, but is more flashing back to one of those long evenings which the party probably spend discussing tactics for basic situations, and running through the occasional training manoeuver. Like in a sports team, where the players all know what a specific play call means, because they have been drilling it in training for weeks, so they don’t need to spell it out in front of the orcs faces. I only allow this rule to apply with “expected” situations, so when facing new and unique situations, they just have to go with the flow if they couldn’t possible have planned for it, but in standard fights, I figure it is completely reasonable that they would be so drilled to maximise their combat effectiveness, that reminding people at the table is only fair.
Sounds like you’d enjoy Blades in the Dark. Flashing back to the strategic preparations you made beforehand is an actual gameplay mechanic in it.
Do you literally do the flashback, or is this just a justification that you carry around in your back pocket during moments of table talk?
I’m a fan of the “show, don’t tell” approach. It’s not some magic power. The PCs can do it as well if they try. At that point, anyone who doesn’t want to participate becomes “That Guy”: “I don’t wait for others to get into position. I just charge ahead. iT’S wHaT My chArAcTeR wOuLd Do.”
That said the GM doesn’t always need to make optimal decisions. That depends on the enemies. I mean, the goblin raiders at the start of Rise of the Runelords certainly don’t wait for their allies(?) to get into position.
I guess it’s becoming a theme at this point. I tend to be highly critical of my own combat moves as a GM:
https://www.handbookofheroes.com/archives/comic/handicap
In general, i hold the view that whats good for the monsters is good for the PCs. Theyre a trained group of theoretically combat-ready True Companions or whatever. If they want to have a certain amount of “unspoken” coordination where you have a quarterback trying to make the most of everybody’s positioning, thats entirely within their rights, so far as the players are willing to listen. Its not the players fault that they dont function as a hive mind like the NPCs, so if they have to vocalize their communication explicitly rather than implicitly, allowances can be made.
I tend to run like that myself.
Any thoughts on “table talk as problem” though? Is there a point where mid-combat strategizing strains credulity?
Yes. Usually the part right away where they start thinking about tactics. But mostly because my players dont typically think this way in the first place. Its a minor miracle when it happens, and i try to encourage them to think about more than just “whats the biggest nuke i can use?” I cant remember the last time in combat i had to take a step back and say “its kind of strange for you to react like that in this situation.”
For opposing forces, the theory is usually that they’ve trained together, whether that’s a wolf pack harrying their prey or vampire thralls acting in eerie coordination as they execute the master’s plan. (And if they’re a bumbling miniboss squad who can’t coordinate, then their tactics should reflect that.)
For the players… I admit, even as DM, I’ve stepped in with the occasional “You know, if you go here instead…” Sometimes we can have delays of weeks between sessions, and that can be enough for some players to forget the finer points of combat (and how most of their class abilities work, but I digress.) I want to offer a fun challenge, not a memorization test.
That said, there’s nothing quite as rewarding as a player’s reaction when they think they’re safe with their back to the wall… and they get flanked by an earth elemental.
It can be tough to remember that some (most?) players aren’t as into the nitty gritty as your average forum-dweller. A little strategizing and optimizing are fun. But when you’re made to feel dumb because you don’t study the rules and tactics to the same degree as your buddies, it gets un-fun in a hurry.
Characters don’t get to discuss complex battle plans in the middle of a fight… even with telepathy to keep things private, accurate and detailed communication mid-battle is pushing the “talking is a free action” concept. And that applies to PCs and NPCs alike.
That said, I also have no problem with the idea that a team that’s worked together for a while can rely on their knowledge of how each other think, and (within reason) can justify a certain amount of OOC planning as a combination of practiced moved backed up by appropriate fast signaling. If a rogue has been working with the same friends for years, setting up flanking would just be instinct by now…
How about the example in the OP? The “ready for the flank” maneuver seems to straddle the line between “you’d have planned for this” and “you don’t have time to talk that much during combat.” How would it work out at your table?
at the end of it, I always figure that the characters are battle-hardened warriors, and the players are not. in order to make them able to better play the role of “experienced combatant”, I let them discuss their turns when they see fit, with the obvious caveat that the final decision is the players to make.
After all, I would think that these well-trained high level heroes would have at least some degree of combat intuition.
I’m afraid “combat intuition” has a prerequisite of “you must be 9th level or higher.” 😛
instead of calling BS on that maneuver I‘d have gone with „That is a cool maneuver to remember for future battles, eh guys?“
Because „If you can do it, I can do it“.
I believe one of the objections was, “We’d never get away with that!”
And I was like, “How has trust so broken down at my table?” Of course they would. It’s a legal maneuver. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen them try something so fiddly and tactical.
It’s honestly weird to me that, “We circle around our prey like friggin’ wolves know to do instinctually,” comes off as such an advanced concept that it must be illegal.
Sounds like the held action was what pushed it over the edge.
Having one shade move up and attack, and then the other one move up and attack with flanking bonus, is perfectly reasonable, and doesn’t get into fussy rules. Held actions, however, seem to have a lot of variance over systems and feats and just general player understanding of them. “You’re allowed to do this, but not that (for example, no extra attacks), and if you cast a spell it requires concentration (which means it’s almost worthless to most mages), and you have to word the conditions exactly right or you can’t even use it at all, etc.”
The players “wouldn’t be able to get away with that” because of huge initiative gaps, or the path for the second player to follow being blocked, or the target moved, or arguments between the players (as seen in the comic), or the appearance of a new threat on the battlefield that completely changes people’s priorities, or poor phrasing of the condition, or the realization that +2 on one attack isn’t a useful trade for +0 on two attacks, or the warlock one-shots the mob you’re ready to attack before your other partner can get in position (so you’ve wasted both your action and reaction), etc, etc.
So when the players think of readied actions, it carries with it all the baggage of all the things the GM is going to say you’re not allowed to do using that mechanic. When the GM uses it in the manner you described, all of that gets completely bypassed. There’s no outside interference or unknown surprises in store. You don’t even have to worry about your wait condition getting messed up, because you’re moving all creatures on the same initiative turn instead of risking that your action will be completely wasted because of significant changes in the battlefield.
It’s not even a matter of trust (though that’s certainly a factor). It’s just generally a bad idea with bad outcomes on the player side, while the GM gets a perfect magical cupcake of a maneuver.
initiative gaps is probably the best argument for calling BS.
The DM might let the players „get away with it“ in theory.
But the opportunity to actually pull it off due to the melee fighters ending up on consecutive initiative counts is rather slim.
reading up on readying an action in PF1e: you can only take a 5ft step as part of readying an action, so the call of BS is probably justified.
“reading up on readying an action in PF1e: you can only take a 5ft step as part of readying an action, so the call of BS is probably justified.”
You are misreading that, in PF1e you are allowed to take a 5ft step, as part of resolving the readied action (if you didn’t already move this turn). So if you are standing next to an enemy spellcaster and you ready an action to attack them when they cast their next spell, then if they 5ft step away before casting, you get to 5ft step after them before making the attack.
Actually readying the action is just a standard action, you can do whatever you normally could with your move action (and so on) before you take that standard action. This is also why it has to specify that whole “if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round”, to prevent you from getting a 5ft step after moving normally.
right, thanks.
will have to keep that in mind.
On the other hand, what you also have in Pathfinder is Delay, when you deliberately drop your initiative to a chosen value for the rest of the combat; this could be easily used as a gap closer for those melee fighters to end up consecutive or even same initiatives… (And you don’t even lose a round because as a free action you just say that “okay, instead of taking my turn, I drop my initiative and take my turn then, from now on”)
Well sure. But the difference is that groups of baddies start out on the same initiative. That’s usually an inconsequential ease-of-play thing, but in this instance it means they will always have a minimal opportunity cost for this style of maneuver.
@Colin I mean, you could just roll separate initiative for each baddie to counterbalance that. If you are using any digital tool to manage combat, it might not even slow things down.
Due to player objections, I actually wound up giving the flanking bonus to only one of the critters. I felt at the time that “whine at the GM” might have been at play…
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/74/98/de/7498de2553db8acf9744c59dbc2f8184.jpg
…But in retrospect I think the magical cupcake argument is a good one. While the maneuver is legal, it’s fiddly enough and has enough baggage attached to it that the appearance of illegality is more important than the fact.
You know that stock kid’s show episode where the bad guys are working as an effective team but the good guys are having problems, then they resolve those problems, then the good guys work together better and the bad guys’ teamwork falls apart? That could be a decent narrative arc for this kind of problem.
I’d love it if that’s how it worked out.
I don’t some level of table talk. Sometimes it’s justified, and in GURPS there are Skills and Advantages that can be used to allow for it (I mean that what Teamwork advantages and the Tactics skill were made for), so if the PCs have those abilities, I’m not going to stop the Players.
As GM I’d only pull the shens you were pulling if the group of enemies had those tactical advantages, and I’d have them telegraph that stuff, like one guy shouts “Attack Plan Alpha Niner” or something while standing around looking officer/arrow magnet like.
Now I’m curious. What are the GURPGS advantages that call out “you are allowed to table talk?”
I had a terrible situation somewhat recently that has forced me to take the drastic step of giving a player GM privileges in my R20 game.
So, the rogue is doing a sneak around. The party knows there are some kobolds up on a terrace, but they aren’t sure how many. We have a Battle Oracle, and they decide to move up. The battle oracle forms a plan independently with another player-the plan is for the two of them, with their Very High AC, to stand up front and get everything’s attention, allowing the rest of the party to blast and hack and commence in general hack n’ slash merriment until all enemies are kerdead.
WELL. They had info on the enemies they could see, and not the four elite warriors in stealth.
So, BOracle waltzes off, and cusses out the kobolds. Like half rate never gonna be dragons kinda’ stuff. And it goes completely wrong here because the Fighter didn’t walk up with them. The BOracle is completely surrounded in seconds has a pitiful initiative. Compounding this, the Rogue has a not great initiative, and makes the tactical decision to not blow stealth JUST YET because they want more people involved in the fight.
I think that’s all fine and good, but everyone got pissed off at the rogue for not sharing the punching pool. I call absolutely blatant meta gaming on my players, they grumble about it and demand they are completely justified.
So fine. The Rogue gets to maneuver in stealth on the GM layer now. The Rogue happens to be my co-GM anyways, so I don’t mind them seeing how things operate on that side a little more indepth.
It’s always that Fighter guy screwing things up….
Why didn’t he walk into position? Initiative problems?
Literally just wasn’t paying attention. Might have been AFK, didn’t say anything.
I’m thinking if I was BOracle, I would’ve waited at least for someone else to be standing beside me before I started telling the kobolds that they were suitcases waiting to happen.
I’d argue flanking in 5E makes combat less tactical.
Without it characters have to weigh risk, opportunity cost and the like. Is it worth your action and concentration for Faerie Fire? Do you give up one of your attacks to knock an enemy prone? Do you leave yourself open through Reckless Attack? Do you waste your action with a True Strike?
With it characters can gain advantage too easily. Since advantage is binary, once you have it you have no reason to seek other sources.
In 4E opportunity attacks worked differently. If you moved out of a space within a creature’s reach it gave an OA. This means that you couldn’t circle around them to get into flanking position. 5E OAs are only when the opponent leaves your reach entirely. This was done to be easier for theater of mind combat, but it does not mesh well with flanking.
The other dumb thing is the “Conga line”. If you are flanking you already have an enemy on one side of you. Then a second enemy can get into position to flank you, and we’ve got a really awkward conga-line.
Sounds to me like 5e deemphasizes the grid.
Even with a grid flanking makes 5E worse though for the above reasons. The presence/absence of a grid isn’t the issue.
5e doesn’t even feature flanking. Having a buddy within swinging distance enables sneak attack, but doesn’t grant advantage on the attack roll in and of itself.
It’s an optional rule in 5e. Like the other guy said, it tends to make the other thousand abilities that grant advantage slightly less relevant because it’s comparatively easy to achieve.
When I GM, I try to use tactics based on the monster’s intelligence. For example, a pack of zombies would head towards the nearest targets without any thoughts. But a squad of hobgoblins, who have all had military training, are totally going to use advanced tactics.
Would you be OK with the players using the same tactics as the hobgoblins? And is it kosher if they have to use a bit of table talk to achieve that?
Absolutely. The name of the game is to have fun.
Plus much like I don’t expect my players to be expert swordsman in real life, I don’t expect them to seasoned and trained adventurers. So if some table talk helps them compensate for the difference between themselves and their characters, I let them have at it.
we got some fairly new and insecure players, tactical table talk is kind of a way to remind them of the options available.
Not a bad piece of advice for veteran players right there. Talking through your thinking out loud is a good way to help newer players approach the tactical side of the game.
I used to play version of Tabletop Fire Emblem on a forum. It was good fun, but ultimately what it came down to is that a handful of players would eventually hop onto a side chat and painstakingly plan out each and every step of the battle.
By and large, I could find ways to be ok with this, but there were a handful of times where I really wanted to make a certain move and found myself on the outs with everyone else on the room because I chose to make a decision that differed from the Grande Plan.
Still managed to make it through a campaign, but the idea soured to me over time and I just kinda moved on. Still like the folks. But the system isn’t really well designed for allowing players to just… Do their own thing.
Is that a problem specific to Fire Emblem, or would any kind of forum-based play run into the same issue?
What should be considered is if the flanking bonus is worth the teamwork and for who. Lets say a fighter is fighting a mook, the rogue flank it and finish it. That could be good teamwork of the rogue player stealing a killing. Teamwork or selfish game? Also is a bonus worth the effort you need to get it? Think of backstabbing. High damage but situational. As a rogue you look for chances to use that boost now getting is the trick. Yet, what if the effort of setting up a situation isn’t worth the bonus you can get from it? 🙂
Five feet is an awfully long way…. 😛
Don’t tell me that, don’t tell me how to play my character 😛
Tactics can get iffy on the DM side. They always control a squad of baddies and are the arbitrators of what tactics they use (even APs offer suggestions or stuff like morale, but it’s ultimately up to the DM) or how they act (emotionally, personality… Honor, sadism, nihilism , cowardice and such apply). This can make a simple encounter hideously difficult or a difficult one easier.
I recall in one of my first Rise of the Runelords games where the DM set up a rather horribly lethal ‘team attack’ with the monsters, courtesy of being in control of a squad of NPCs.
We were fighting a Quasit (you probably know which one)with some Sin Spawn flunkies, a classic case of spellcaster with meatshields.
So things went thusly: a sinspawn that was adjacent to our Cavalier and in melees, delayed their turn to after the Quasit. The Quasit proceeds to cast Hold Person and the cavalier failed their save, becoming paralyzed. Sinspawn’s delayed turn now occurs, and they proceed to coup de grace the helpless cavalier with nobody able to prevent it, save AOOs on the coup-doer. It took the use of hero points to barely survive the save vs instant death.
As it happens, in the same encounter I described in the OP, the unlucky dude who spent most of the combat suffering from “hold person” was getting coup de graced every turn. Happily, the dude standing next to him had the In Harm’s Way feat:
https://www.starjammersrd.com/feats/combat-feats/in-harms-way-combat/
No idea how that mess is supposed to interact with coup de grace…
https://www.reddit.com/r/starfinder_rpg/comments/nv7ew6/in_harms_way_coup_de_grace/
…But the only reason I even considered using an insta-kill against a PC is that mitigating circumstance. Coup de grace is exactly the sort of tactic I hesitate to use against PCs. I bet you guys felt like heroes for getting out of it in one piece, but my own taste runs to a slightly less “killer GM” style.
It’s a great example though, offering another case of, “Maybe don’t go quite so HAM making the strongest possible plays, MR. GM man.”
I’m currently playing 4e D&D as a Warlord. It’s quite interesting to play a class who’s gimmick is to basically make everyone else have an easier time fighting, or playing literal chess with the other allies, moving them or the enemies around to set up flanking and getting people out of trouble.
It’s a lot like playing Into The Breach – where positioning is everything and you can pull shenanigans like getting baddies to be pushed into harmful hazards or each others attacks, or making them waste turns/attacks.
<I’m currently playing 4e D&D as a Warlord>
I miss my Warlord… 5E needs to come to the party and bring this class back!
Some of the most fun I had with positioning was a one-shot in Pf1e. It was our demo game for Veranthea and… hold on… Ha! It’s still online!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG-0ki4fJEw
I was playing this dude:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/138226/Veranthea-Codex-Spoony-Jawz-Top-Pilot-of-Trectoyri–FREE-PDF
…A high-level rogue with a pseudo dragon familiar named Gimmick. That little dragon was a wonderful wand caddy, and loved nothing so much as spamming “telekinetic charge” on our allies:
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/telekinetic-charge/
It was basically “build your own Warlord.” Even there though, I believe one of my allies refused to be subject to the effect at some point, effectively wasting a charge. That might have something to do with my being a chaotic evil little shit at the time, but the point stands: telling other people what to do on their turns is a sticky proposition!
Are Thief and Fighter playing by (wizard) chess rules here or standard fantasy fighting? Is fighter going for an au passant?
More like au pissant.
As a GM, my rule on stopping the game to discuss rules is that I am all for it, but that I also reserve the right to go “I made my decision, we can talk about it later”. If my players think my ruling is questionable, then I often encourage them to call it out. Generally I prefer to have the conversation then and there, rather then discover a player got killed, screwed over or worse, expelled, due to me making a wrong ruling on something.
As for movement rules, I just straight up tune out when people start going into the intricate of stuff like Pathfinders movement system (I played a flying swashbuckler for half a year, and I still only have a vague idea of how flying works in that game). From what I can see from your example, it seems like a fine maneuver for an intelligent creature to make, or one used to hunting in packs. If the players complained, then I would argue that they were free to do the same thing.
Having monsters behave smartly can also inspire players. My players started making much more use of agents and disguises, after dealing with a Rakshasa and they started making good use of the silence and darkness spells after several run ins with a silenced Boneclaw, that the silence and darkness to sneak up on the casters, pierce them and then teleport away. This lead to them discovering the tactic of just grabbing important enemies and then teleporting away with them, so that the team can gang up on them in peace, while the rest of the foes catch up to them.
I tend to call the close ones in the players’ favor. In the OP example, I only wound up giving one of the critters its flanking bonus.
It’s no fun having your authority and impartiality questioned as a GM. But by the same token, I find that giving up a little authority gains a lot of trust. (Now if only my stubborn ass can remember this comment next time I feel like digging in my heels.)
It is an attitude born from my personal experiences with DMs who had only a lose grasp of the rules, which often impacted the party in a very negative way.
Like that one time one of them thought a a 13th Age module was actually a D&D 5e Module, fit for a level 7 party. Leading to fun situations such as what was supposed to be a basic gnoll having a+11 to hit and dealing an automatic 21 damage per hit while also having 90 hitpoints. He somehow were completely unable to understand why we were almost wiped by the modules intro encounter, and kept insisting that it was a 5e module, no matter how much I questioned it, due to the many, many inconsistencies. The only reason we didn´t lose our characters was because we had a much firmer grasp of the rules and tactics then he did.
I don´t think he ever really understood the difference between systems. Even after I looked up the module (After we finished it) and pointed out that it had a giant “13th Age” on the cover.
So ever since that, and a fair amount of less noteworthy events, I had a policy of encouraging my players to question me if they think I made a wrong ruling or if something is funky. Of course with the appendum that I, as DM, have the final say. But I am generally willing to listen.
*If anyone were curious the Module was “Swords against Owlbears”, from Free RPG Day. It is a fun module, as long as one is actually playing the correct system.
Now I want to create a villain whose shtick is coordinating his minions like that. Like the players are fighting your typical uncoordinated foes, and then
DM: Suddenly, a deep voice echoes through the chamber.
V: “This annoying incursion has persisted long enough. Assuming direct control.”
DM: As one, your foes spasm, then just as quickly straighten back up, assuming flawless fighting stances as they scan the battlefield with their eyes, critically assessing you, the environment, and everyone’s position.
And then they start perfectly coordinating and using advanced tactics; readied actions, delaying their spot in the initiative order, combo moves.
The 4e “Ardent” class had an element of that… the psychic version of the leader role, they’d basically give extra actions to other party members, usually basic attacks. And that’s kind of boring… until you realise that when a psychic is granting his allies extra attacks, it may be because they’re remote-controlling their party members. Takes a bit of cooperation with other players, but you can have fun with that…
Ooh… You could even change stats! The kobolds instantly become advanced kobolds with pack tactics!
My table of power gamers frequently call out or suggest tactics in combat and I don’t mind as long as the game keeps rolling, nor do they cry foul when they foolishly chase a fleeing thug into a blind alley that has been prepared for them with oil-slicked cobbles and a firing squad of thief archers hidden on the rooftops to create a killing zone on everyone who tries to stand while Balancing (no Dex. bonus means sneak attack damage within 30′). They say some choice things, sure, but they note the tactic for their own use later.
My foil for some of it (in a couple campaigns) is my own PC/NPC. High initiative and chaotic alignment are the enemies of group tactics. Whether it’s an impulsive half-orc battle-cleric or a halfling rogue with seven-league boots and a ring of invisibility, having one Leroy Jenkins in the group means that everyone better be on the same page before initiative is rolled or you can kiss your strategizing good-bye.
Your jib. I like the cut of it.
In the demon-themed level of my mega-dudgeon, Monte Cook made a point to call out the way to play demons as anti-tactical. The should honestly teleport away to heal up and ambush later, but their bloodlust takes over. They attack the closest target with malevolent glee rather than going for the more tactical play. Etc. etc. Chaotic evil personified.
I’ve always had the opposite problem of players having an easier time coordinating than the DM. While the players don’t have the ability to set up complex battle strategies, they still can get together some basic tactical manoeuvring. The DM, on the other hand, is usually too mentally scattered trying to control half a dozen or more enemies to come up with anything resembling strategy, beyond the occasional “attack the caster”. I suppose it does depend on the DM though, and their familiarity with wargaming.
Yeah… I come from a strategy board game / M:tG / warhammer sort of background. Some of my players are more story gamers and theater kids.
I do think things even back out at high level though. Running complex villains, it’s much more difficult to make optimal plays as compared to my PCs who have been running their dudes for eight IRL years.
our game uses theater of the mind for some fights and a map for others, depending on a lot of factors, and no matter what, we can still “get tactical”.
when it comes to things like the meta gaming pidgeon and “cross talk” at the table, there is a sort of loose rule that we “can” speak of things that are tactically related, but keep them short in general and try not to meta game… too much.
I would say, aside from the first few sessions together, where we were still trying to figure each other out, no one expressly tells another what to do, but there are a few times where the more logistically minded and tactically “sound” of us will have our moments of frustration at another person when they do something that we think is “wrong” for the moment.
Early on, those of us that had played before also had to “teach” those that hadn’t a lot of basics of the game in addition to trying to instill in them a bit of battlefield awareness, but very quickly, everyone undesrtood their own role in the game in general, and aside from “friendly” reminders to use certain skills (which we ALL forget from time to time… STILL), we have all reached a sort of balance in the game and we don’t really get worried about the tactics anymore.
Of course everything (tactics, good sense, non-meta gaming, etc) goes out the window when the bodies of player’s characters start dropping… but I like to think that’s normal 😀
I always appreciate your comments, Casually Challenged! It’s like you’re describing every table I’ve ever been a part of. 🙂