there is a great book called "The Monsters Know What They Are Doing " which lays out battle strategy for each monster the monster manual and how they would interact. ie goblins are cowardly so will look to attack from range or in numbers but will look to retreat at the first sign of trouble, but if they have a bugbear general the bugbear will intimidate them into continuing to fight
I thought you were going somewhere else with your analogy: The battle was interesting and meaningful because the English had to face superior odds because they were under time pressure (food, disease, reinforcement). This forced them to improvise and use creative tactical solutions. I think this is useful for GMs as well. Too often we give players the liberty of careful planning, choosing their battles, and stacking their odds. But if we don't, the fight might be much more memorable.
I know I'm challenging the PCs when, during other people's turns, they quiet go through their abilities and inventory looking for something to bail them out of whatever pickle they're in! I guess you can call it "the look". Leads to some interesting improvisation!
Sun Tzu's The Art of War is a great work to adapt to monster battle tactics. Monsters can: fall back, flank the party, attack from the rear, hit and run, and do those frustrating things that force the party to expend resources. Monsters need not be stupid and simple fodder for the party to chew through.
3 years into 5e didn't realize how powerful that could be. I spent a few prep sessions making a BBEG. Backstory tied in with 2 PCs, secret lair, reasonable if misguided motivation, someone I thought they love to hate. Then a lieutenant npc. Lieutenants job was to look menacing in full plate, stand ominously next to BBEG and order the minions about. When they get to BBEG encounter in the streets. They surprise me and openly attack him. I barely get BBEG out and minions and lieutenant hold off the caster with counter spells. That's literally the only spell I had prepared for them not expecting the fight so soon. My PCs were pissed. I found it amusing at the time. And they spent half the campaign thinking Nameless (at the time) NPC shutting them down with a few gestures was the main villain. It was fun for that one time. But you really have to balance out the fun with a spell like that.
It really depends on alopt of factors in the setting... Like how common is magic, What magic would an army have access to and how good whould the mages be.
- Obstacles or difficult terrain - Infantry on or behind that terrain - Ranged combatants in cover behind infantry. - Battlefield controller behind that to continue to alter obstacles and/or difficult terrain. Really good stuff here for taking what would be a slog and turning it into a tactical assault. Reminds me of "combat as war as apposed to combat as sport." I was just telling my players about this concept.
I just happened to stumble across your videos friday night and have been trying to catch up on all of the older ones. Really enjoy what I've seen so far. Keep them coming.
I imagine each platoon has a banner carrier. Just like in Warhammer. But those banners are actually portable anti magic fields in order to protect our troops from magic damnation. Or at least that is what I would certainly try in a fantasy world like d&d. 🤘🧐✨
and given the incredible expense and value of such an item it would actually justify the suicidal efforts to retrieve one that is sometimes seen in our history.
For your archers, I suggest starting with Scouts. They have longbows and a lowish attack score, but can fire on targets up to 150 feet away. It's been one of the best tools I've had for slowing down the Barbarian at my table, who has mobile and 50ft base movement, as well as an ability that lets her move half her movement on a rage. Just getting to these enemies for melee can eat turns if they are broken up, and also serves as a way to separate the party's faster characters from their likely slower caster support...at least once, when the party realizes how much of an error that can be. Scouts are a good start, but we don't want to just add more to the battle as the party levels up. Instead, have elite units with four sidekick levels from Tasha's (Doesn't even matter what class) and then swap their ASI for sharpshooter. Now these few enemies are capable of rolling normal attacks at 600ft. I use them to support melee attackers and scout the party in the wilderness, and they always fade away after four or five rounds of combat to avoid being chased down. Let them fight smart, even if they're supporting meatheaded melee units. Give them mundane tools like caltrops and noise traps to protect their positions if the party does flank them. If they have more time to prepare, stakes, trenches, and pitfalls might also be used. The goal is to split the party's attention, and make them consider cover and movement in what would otherwise be a straightforward brawl. In the end, they also serve as a rewarding miniboss antagonist when the party's plan and rolls finally allow them to catch these hated foes.
This style of encounter could serve to make the more mobile party members like rogues or monks shine. The ability to move past enemies and/or move far is a lot better if there's actually something worth getting to like some vulnerable archers. Of course if you wanna stop this for a bit of extra challenge you put up those stakes or whatnot to impede that strategy
Many DMs don't even use terrain, and this is one of my gripes against theater of mind. My biggest tip to making combat interesting: Roleplaying doesn't stop after initiative is rolled. Also, be ready before it's your turn. Players taking a long time to decide what to do can really drag down combat, making it boring for others.
My biggest pet peeve is when someone isn't ready on their turn. Yes there are caveats. Some people have ADHD or the combat changed drastically. But at least most turns you should have at least some idea of what you want to do. One of my DMS had a sand timer for turns. You had 1min to say what u want to do. It worked well to speed up combat but then you lose the chance to give your action some thematic flair which was why we removed that rule.
Baron man you really put the pieces together on this one. Right when you said the word puzzle I was thinking how sometimes it feels like I’m trying to put a puzzle together without the picture on the box and you just provided that picture! Idk if I should tell you to get out of my head or be proud of the fact that I was getting on your wavelength, either way chilling and excellent!
1:39 Btw, in the battle itself, a little more happened before fighting started. Firstly, the English were silent and on watch the entire night before the battle (which was unusual) and were able to repulse a French attack. Secondly, before the actual fighting, Henry realized that the French were simply waiting. So, he decided to move the battle-line forwards, which caused the French to attack in an attempt to seize the initiative and catch the English with the hose unfastened. But the English were quick enough to set themselves up.
This is an awesome video, and so helpful! I’d love to see more for other battles and strategies, like positioning the monsters (formations and the like) or manipulating the players’ movements.
@@DungeonMasterpiece honestly a double feature on Stanford Bridge and then Hastings could be interesting since it can be used for dungeon complexes with multiple factions that the party have to deal with. Or just do the battle of Suiyang (of Decisive Tang Victory fame) if you can finagle a lesson out of that (though there are probably much better examples of siege warfare to use, that one is just kind of a meme).
@@DungeonMasterpiece Just checking in a few days later to see if my combat was replied to. I think the problem with siege warfare style adventures is that one, the existence of powerful individuals heavily favors small assault teams when defending large areas, and two, there aren’t really great rules for famine and disease in DND, even though these were huge parts of preindustrial life (though I’m sure a DM could come up with good ones in 5-10 minutes). There was even a strip in the Dragon Magazine line of Order of the Stick where a cult only ate one small bowl of gruel once every three days, since that’s what’s needed to avoid taking damage from starvation and there are no rules for taste. The idea of mid level PCs having to hold off against a numerically greatly superior but levelwise about the same enemy force while the government assembles an army to fight the enemy, with no daily limit on abilities as much as drain on material resources over months, sending spells being sent back and forth but nothing more than that, the government‘s only high level spellcaster teleporting food and soldiers in and civilians out, and either the PCs or eventually the government establishing cannibalism as the only way to win, seems like a really interesting and unique adventure. But you have to have a situation where the enemy army knows assault is so costly that losing the strategic initiative is necessary to win, but the defenders aren’t powerful enough to just wipe out the army. Plus the besiegest need supplies too, but they can just be undead or constructs or plants or whatever. And all of this is beginning to sound a lot more like the Battle of Alesia than the Battle of Suiyang, but regardless it’s an adventure scale thing, not a encounter level combat.
Simply mixing monster types can make a combat more fluid and challenging. Some monsters have obvious allies - the Goblin + Bugbear example given here - but Kobolds who tip over jars releasing Giant Centipedes, Zombies and Skeleton archers, Gnolls and Giant Hyenas, Hill Giants with Ogres and Orcs and Cave Bear pets. Best fight I threw at my party was a coven of Green hags with Werewolf servants, and a group of assassins who happened to be Wererats.
I've always approached encounters as puzzles and rarely give out experience as listed on the page. A few examples of the sorts of encounters that I created in the same dungeon. Note that this was built using Pathfinder 1e with sprinklings of abilities and customizations to keep combat interesting, taking inspiration from 4e D&D and FATE's aspect system for zones and the like. In the first encounter, I introduced to a group of level 2 players one each of a goblin archer, goblin alchemist and a goblin shieldbearer. The archer had a directing attack. They'd each take three attacks, two of which would automatically miss, and force the target to take a 5 ft step, ignoring difficult terrain. The shield bearer's opportunity attack would stop all movement from anyone attempting to pass through a threatened square. The alchemist had alchemist's fire thrown through a sling. Each had very few hit points, so dealing with each would be simple enough and there was only 1 of each to give the players an idea as to what they were capable of. The next notable encounter that they had to deal with two archers and two alchemists in a hallway that was filled with debris all over, creating difficult terrain through the hallway. The party's solution was to dip into a secondary corridor while prepping an entangle spell to deal with the goblins should they give chase or attempt to ambush. When they were chased, the party dropped the entangle on the goblins and threw a left over alchemist's fire on the entangling weeds to deal with all of the goblins at once. By this point, considering the party was learning quite a bit against these goblins, I awarded the party enough experience to gain a level. The one before the boss of the dungeon involved a shield bearer, two archers and three alchemists which attempted to ensure that the party was funneled through a small entry way for the alchemists to rain fire upon them. The party's solution was a fog cloud through the entrance, an invisibility spell on the party's rogue, and a few of the alchemist's fires from previous goblins. The rogue snuck in and waited for the party to engage before tossing several alchemist's fires at each of the goblin alchemists. While normally this wouldn't be too big of an issue, the idea was sound and I prefer my players to think outside the box, so I ruled that the ammunition that the alchemists were using was unstable and went up with the ensuing blasts.
Absolutely love this. So, I've been using Kobolds for years, to punch above their weight, with a very simple tactic. Using groups of them, firing from cover, I have one take the Disengage action and run past a single party member. The rest of the Kobolds have readied actions, triggered by their teammate being adjacent to the target. The net effect is that several Kobolds fire with Advantage on a single target, and the runner doesn't even provoke opportunity unless the player has Sentinel. I don't use this to tpk a party, but it would usually work if that was my goal. I generally use it to simply impress upon the party that they are in dangerous territory, and should retreat. If pressed to the limit though, most parties don't figure out how to beat it until they've already taken a lot of damage.
There was a fun moment when I was DMing when I had a ton of blight monsters and a couple druids and berserkers. The players were pretty well picking off the bigger guys until I used a Fog Cloud spell to basically hide the entire battlefield. What I realized right after that was the blights have blindsight, which meant they became a serious threat to the players as they were striking blinded opponents. Thus was born a new tactic next time I get to play a Druid: Fog Cloud the enemy, then shift into the highest CR spider I can to hunt through the fog.
You’re simply the best. Out of all the people offering DM advice and game stuff with all the silly gimmicks etc. I appreciate how succinct and thoughtful your advice is. Thanks for the help!
30 second rule. If your PC doesn’t know what they want to do in 30 seconds, lose your Fing turn. When players feel confident physically getting up and going to the bathroom or getting a drink because it’s THAT persons turn, you know you have a problem.
I'm pretty sure that if you remember all the existing mechanics(what counts as difficult terrain, how covers work, ambushes, spells that take more that an action to cast etc), you can have some good old wargame fun
Awesome video! Makes me think very differently about how I bolster my encounter design. I have already been doing some of this intuitively but this helps a lot to think about combat encounters as a dynamic puzzle with various levers to pull.
Its actually pretty amazing how many battles ended in surrender rather then total slaughter, which is why when I see live plays with absolute no quarter combat I'm a little weirded out why the DM or the players offer terms of Surrender.
You must play with some big groups to have all that going on. Our DM usually just has the monsters materialize within 30 feet of us out of nowhere and then they are in melee and striking us in round 1.
Materialising monsters seems to negate perception and stealth. How would a assassin rogue or Gloomstalker ranger use some of their abilities in that scenario? When u say big groups you mean big groups of players or enemies? Even in 2 man parties I've found it more interesting to have the combat have some tactics and environmental challenges.
I love this way of thinking! 5 Torches Deep also has a magic ability to "manipulate element" that I'm giving all my dragons from now on (up to 120'). That way, for example, the melee fighters must navigate shifting pools and rivers of magma just to get to the red dragon in his volcanic lair.
Great advice. You listed a ton of great ways to challenge the player characters, and simultaneously avoided the spells that can completely shut down PCs, killing the fun. Also, bonus points for the great 60 second synopsis of Agincourt. I don't think there's a famous battle that I see more badly and frequently mischaracterized than that one usually is. 👍🏻
I don`t want to say that this is how D&D 4th edition organized monsters and encounters, but .... this is how D&D 4th edition organized monsters and encounters.
4th gets a bad rap. If it were an rpg published on its own merit, unassociated with DND, it would likely win awards. It was just so NOT what people wanted out of dnd
My way of making combat interesting is to add an RP element to every combat and a skill check or two. Rp- have a kid or npc tied up or hiding. Maybe the orcs eating their dead victims at the camp fire don't see the little girl hiding under the wagon but the players do. This allows the person with bluff to get the girl out from under the cart, telling her it's safe. It gives the players a goal to keep orcs away from the cabin. Then add something to let min maxers shine at their skill checks like trees to climb or something to push. This way, whatever player you have, has a moment in this combat. The social player has the little girl The tactic player wants the orcs to fight away from the girl The show off can scale trees or roll a boulder to cut the orcs off from he girl The Diablo fan, can just go to town like combat has always been
The thing is what happens when both sides start doing this - trying to funnel the enemy into a kill zone. They draw up 'trenches' and trade weak blows with their longest range weapons. Once trenches are established the new tactic become dominant, such as out-ranging, out-lasting or breaking through.
I'm going to counter argument and say that Fireball is a fine spell for NPC casters... but it should never be the first thing they cast. It's not even all that hard to come up with a reason why these spellcasters would wait until their second turn to cast fireball: They have buffs and field control spells to cast on their first round. As a DM I do my best to telegraph my caster's most powerful damage spells. "The goblin shaman completes his incantation and his bugbear bodyguard begins to move unnaturally quickly, he then withdraws to the rear exit and turns to face you, a look of determination in his eyes as fire coalesces in his hands."... That's all it takes for my PCs to realize that this goblin is going to cast some big fire spell on his next turn... (and if I'm planning wall of fire instead of fireball then I'll add mention that he poured a white powder from a pouch into his hand. An arcana check would reveal that to be the phosphorus component of Wall of Fire). If the party knows it's coming, they can spread their formation out to mitigate the damage... but if you spring it on them then there was no decision to be made, thus no tactical interest. Nothing punctuates the extreme danger of leaving the enemy spellcaster alive like 8d8 fire damage, and honestly I consider crowd control spells like Web and Hypnotic Pattern to be far more... unfun for the player characters to deal with than the strategic dilemma of "we have to spread out or we'll take huge damage from fireball, but there's a hasted bugbear that is going to wreak havoc on our backline if we split up". Depending on the size of your party, a player could be waiting upwards to 10 minutes for your turn, so I try to keep any effects that prevent players from doing *anything* on their turn to a minimum.
I'd like to remind you guys that manipulating the battlefield to hamper players' actions should be used ALWAYS with providing some alternatives in mind. Because otherwise it becomes a slog of a combat where melee characters without movement abilities just go "i use dash and go 30 ft upon difficult terrain" each turn while being barraged by enemies' ranged units. And stuff like that. For example, if you place a wizard (or other obstacles) that manipulates the battlefield - make sure to include at least some non-linear solutions to the problems that it provides. Freezing the floor in the mansion so it becomes slippery? There can be a kitchen in the next room that have a vat of boiling water that was ready for dinner in the mansion. If guys don't wanna go rushing into the problems you create - they should be given at least a hint of how they can improvise.
Reminds me of the importance of CC, crowd control. I used to play a PC game city of heroes where the controller class was devoted to simply locking down the opponents and controlling the battlefield. I've tried to do this several times in DnD and other gaming systems with various levels of success but when it works its devastating
A trick for running large battles is have it like a set piece... a back drop for what the players do. Like in assissan's creed or call of duty. Also do have stat blocks for each unit but do bog down the combat with endless grid based combat exacpt for set objectives. The rest a roll per player in what they are best at would be enough. Or if you want a more fluid combat have the simplied stat block with a single weapon spell for each unit. And give the players each a unit or have them intect with a overveiw map jumping around helping each unit... Maybe with grid combat. Pretty much simply or script the overall battle and only enter combat a few times staying in naritive most of the time.
Do not forget that at Agiencourt the battle field narrowed approaching the English which forced the dismounted French knights formation in on itself restricting individual knight effectiveness. The knights lacked discipline crowding the battlefield seeking personal glory, honor while no field marshal existed to control troops moving on the field.
This is the answer to "How do you challenge a high level party". 4 Kobolds in a 60ft room if prepared well enough can absolutely destroy even a high level party. Poison, pit traps, bear traps, caltrops, swinging log traps, oil slick, and roof collapsing traps can alter the battlefield to the point where the party cant hit anything, they cant get close, and if they try there are a number of aspects to make advancing difficult. That encounter is well under a group of 1st level adventurers skills and yet with this set up you can humble a party of level 10 adenturers.
Running battles are also kinda of cool. Rarely in real life do two sides just show and a winner walk away. Having the battle move over hours or days could be a cool way to get the party to think more tactically in a broad way. Suddenly spells that seems meh can do a lot of stuff.
to me it sounds like the key to victory at agincourt was facing braindead commanders. "my lord, the enemy is in a fortified position with a concave formation of archers on the other side of extremely difficult terrain" "excellent send our cavalry alone in a head on charge" "sir, the cavalry is being slaughtered" "hmm signal their retreat and send our infantry through the mud into the concave" "sir, the infantry have been surrounded and have all surrendered" "do we have any more troops i can sacrifice to the english?" "no sir" "very well offer our surrender" this is zap branigan level tactical thinking.
I think we should give the French more credit here. This was the first time barricades were used in this way to halt a heavy cavalry charge in any widespread mass combat scale. Additionally, advances in bow making recently made the English longbow have incredible power most bows didn't have (and couldn't penetrate heavy cavalry armor of the day). Additionally, from the bottom of the hill through the fog, it likely didn't appear there was a baricade through the snow fall, and it would have been difficult to see while charging full speed on horseback through a visor. The English were also outnumbered some 3.5:1, and entirely without cavalry for a counter-flank maneuver. If it weren't for such clever use of the terrain and the weather being just right, I'm sure the French would have all but eliminated the English in that first wave.
@@DungeonMasterpiece you should always give the benefit of the doubt, it's just there were A LOT of factors making the attack the way you described a bad idea. the leaders of the cavalry units would be primarily to blame, either not controlling their men or straight up ordering the charge. armies forming up against each other and just not doing anything until one of the two commanders decided they held the definite advantage was common throughout history, the cavalry commanders should have known this (being educated, particularly in roman history which was full of this) and pulled back the second they came under fire. reorganize and let the french army's overall commander re-asses the situation. given the hill, terrain, fog, enemy formation, and time being on their side the attack wouldn't have been ordered that day. also off the top of my head the battle of the golden spurs between the french and flemish rebels saw the french knights slaughtered running into a prepared position of cavalry spikes and this was after a successful infantry attack to weaken the Flemish line. happened 113 years before agincourt. it's a great video though, and wonderful advice for the game.
Both D&D 4e and D&D 5e, unlike the Archers at Agincourt, started all combats at melee range. The English Archers (Long Bowmen), whittled the French Knights and French Infantry down to size before they got to combat range, but 4e and 5e D&D players never get that option.
Great video. This will fix larger combat encounter and make them more interesting. But the best cure for boring DND combats is to look at a game that actually does combat well. DCC har the right idea. Solid crit (that scales with levels) and fumble tables, mechanics that let you do anything you can think of (Fighter deed die, ingenuous!) and a greater risk of makes the combat more exciting. Magic also has insane potential but using it comes with a great risk. Every roll has some added element other than: you loose x-amount of HP. DND should take notes.
So the general jist of it means keep archers protected and covered while melee come and focus the ones that threaten the archers while support like spell caster who change the environment so basically everyone’s doing a part for the rangers I think I got it
My coworker, and good friend, who also has done adventure league releases at gen con and has won multiple awards for his dungeon mastering at conventions would 100% agree with your assessment of my channel. He hates it. Could you imagine working with me, let alone being very good friends of mine? I feel sorry for him, truly.
Dude. Major apologies for my comment yesterday. I barely remember even leaving the comment if that tells you anything about my night last night. You have a great channel. I still appreciate anyone that is jocking to provide content to new DM’s like myself. I despise people who get on these channels and do what I did, using the keyboard to hash out other issues they’ve got going on. Be encouraged! This stuff is good.
Another great video! Shameless plug for Fate Core: creating advantage aspects with mechanical weight adds to interesting strategy to make epic combats.
Good video! This is basicaly Matt Colville's tactics video but more succint, which I appreciate. How to avoid simply totally overwhelming the party this way, though?
Make their values (hp, damage, etc) lower to give some room for error, or hint at weaknesses and counters to the tactic. Hopefully, players will learn and come up with them on their own over time.
When thinking about combat, there are 3 general categories I use: 1. Mindless monsters (zombies, skeletons, and the like), they just attack the first thing they see 2. Combat troops (guards, soldiers, thieves, thugs, rogues, etc.): They know basic tactics, protect the ranged, spread out to avoid fireballs, cover each others flank, retreat and reposition, use barricades, high ground, etc. 3. Rivals, Bosses, omniscient beings, etc. (bad guys who are level 20 wizards, beholders, those who have fought the party before and know what the party is capable of, etc.) They fight super dirty, set up complex ambushes and traps, move in a way to avoid attacks of opportunity, leverage what the party loves (ie. a captured NPC friend of the party, etc.). Not every combat needs to be as hard as possible, but the monsters should try the best they are reasonably capable of. I always run the monsters as hard as I can justify in the lore, and just turn the HP dial or the number of monsters dial as needed. Except bosses, they're ruthless. Don't underestimate your players, they have 4 or 5+ brains, you only have one. I assure you, they'll find creative ways to win if you reward creative tactics.
Also, teach your players these principles a bit at a time. If they’re less experienced or bad at tactics, start showing them how weaker smart monsters use tactics to negate their advantages before having tougher monsters appear forcing the players to adopt the tactics they saw to win. Also, consider having just “melee, ranged and cover”, and let them learn that before adding difficult terrain and enemy spellcasters.
@@TimothyEdwards I have played very little dungeons and dragons over the course of my career, as an actual player. I'm glad that I had the DM that I did. I remember the first time I said to him, "I'm not sure we can defeat all these monsters!" As if I expected the combat encounter to be nerfed. His response: "Well, do you want to be a little bitch and run, or do you want to stand here and die?" I never looked back. Been DMing that way since. Oh and I never looked back. I fuckin ran. 🤣🤣
Baron, i like your videos and content. I instantly subscribed when I found your channel. But I need to say (and i reeeeeally don't mean it in an offensive way) but the way you move while speaking reminds me the way a muppet moves. That's all 😅😅 Keep up with the great work you do 👍👍👍
He only discussed the tactical elements, but the fights in the original Star Wars Trilogy were much more exciting than the Prequels (excepting Obi-Wan's second duel with Vader) because of the dramatic effect and investment in the characters and villains. I think this has much more to do with making combat meaningful than the tactics, which the Prequels were technically superior.
Combats are a hit point slog unless you think outside the stat block. Create environmental or conditional effects. Things like fog, mud, underwater environs, and the like will force both sides to adjust unless that's their native environment. Darkness and dim light are often "magically" abated by a misinterpretation of Darkvision, so a proper understanding of this condition can really change a combat. Creatures should be considered for their innate abilities as well, such as their size, movement types, and their base strength or intelligence. An Ankheg erupting from directly below a Gnome turns standard combat into a viewing of Tremors. A giant throwing a PC across the battlefield becomes a reply of Game of Thrones. Fighting Sahaughin in their native underwater environment becomes Jaws, Deep Blue Sea, or other water based terrors. Think cinematically. Tactical situations or plans (like a set piece battle in open terrain) are often instantly defeated by PC ingenuity, so I tend to not count on those moments. Most players would likely just move around a force through the woods, or cast fireball to blast those hiding behind cover. We've all see the "Tuckers Kobolds" combat before, and I know how much PCs hate it. I still use it from time to time, but do not make a major combat out of it, as it makes players feel like they don't count as I needle small amounts of their health from them over time. If the PCs enter a situation like this voluntarily, well, that's on them. Needle away. I do agree that the players and opponents, regardless of who they should be, should consider the environment before any combat. Those that fail to do so will typically lose.
I love how we are actually analyzing historical battles in order to use them for our sunday, make-believes, lol. Thanks for the vid :)
You pastor uses historical battles in his sermons? Awesome, I'd love to go to your church!
@@kylas1902 Haaaa
@@kylas1902 I mean the crusades would be a good sermon material
DND was always based on war games which are as ancient as people are.
Wait until you learn about Chess. 🤣
there is a great book called "The Monsters Know What They Are Doing
" which lays out battle strategy for each monster the monster manual and how they would interact. ie goblins are cowardly so will look to attack from range or in numbers but will look to retreat at the first sign of trouble, but if they have a bugbear general the bugbear will intimidate them into continuing to fight
Thanks for making me aware of this book. I'll see if I can find it.
@@DungeonMasterpiece Keith Ammann's "The Monsters Know What They Are Doing".
The sequel was released recently as well, and goes over the monsters in Volo's and Tome of Foes.
He has a blog/website of the same name.
There are now 2 books. I don't even play 5th edition and they are well worth the read.
nice point about "battlefield re-contextualisation" ... and yes, a few simple spells can be perfect for this approach, without feeling over-powered
I thought you were going somewhere else with your analogy:
The battle was interesting and meaningful because the English had to face superior odds because they were under time pressure (food, disease, reinforcement). This forced them to improvise and use creative tactical solutions.
I think this is useful for GMs as well. Too often we give players the liberty of careful planning, choosing their battles, and stacking their odds. But if we don't, the fight might be much more memorable.
I know I'm challenging the PCs when, during other people's turns, they quiet go through their abilities and inventory looking for something to bail them out of whatever pickle they're in! I guess you can call it "the look". Leads to some interesting improvisation!
Sun Tzu's The Art of War is a great work to adapt to monster battle tactics. Monsters can: fall back, flank the party, attack from the rear, hit and run, and do those frustrating things that force the party to expend resources. Monsters need not be stupid and simple fodder for the party to chew through.
Any good fantasy army would have at least one Abjuration Mage per unit to counter spell the enemy Evocationist.
3 years into 5e didn't realize how powerful that could be.
I spent a few prep sessions making a BBEG. Backstory tied in with 2 PCs, secret lair, reasonable if misguided motivation, someone I thought they love to hate. Then a lieutenant npc. Lieutenants job was to look menacing in full plate, stand ominously next to BBEG and order the minions about.
When they get to BBEG encounter in the streets. They surprise me and openly attack him. I barely get BBEG out and minions and lieutenant hold off the caster with counter spells. That's literally the only spell I had prepared for them not expecting the fight so soon. My PCs were pissed. I found it amusing at the time. And they spent half the campaign thinking Nameless (at the time) NPC shutting them down with a few gestures was the main villain.
It was fun for that one time. But you really have to balance out the fun with a spell like that.
Or a healer works really well
It really depends on alopt of factors in the setting... Like how common is magic, What magic would an army have access to and how good whould the mages be.
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough and it only takes a single extra mage over the enemy to decimate a formation and trigger instant routes.
You're my favourite D&D youtuber. Your videos have perfect pace, are fun and full of info, and your voice is like a honey for ears.
Well that's the best comment I've gotten all month!!! Thank you! I'm glad you are enjoying my content 😜
So happy this came out while I was prepping a combat for tonight's session.
Love everything about this, all the details. Even down to the scholar's cradle hand position. *Chef's Kiss*
Wait till next week when I do the Merkel
Me quietly waiting to unleash an onslaught for my my next campaign, thank you so much for all the previous videos. I'm definitely upping my game now😁
- Obstacles or difficult terrain
- Infantry on or behind that terrain
- Ranged combatants in cover behind infantry.
- Battlefield controller behind that to continue to alter obstacles and/or difficult terrain.
Really good stuff here for taking what would be a slog and turning it into a tactical assault.
Reminds me of "combat as war as apposed to combat as sport." I was just telling my players about this concept.
This is why lost mine's opening encounter is deadly. A good dm will keep those guys shifting.
To think its only worth a few xp
That entire adventure is nothing but one TPK after another in the hands of a skilled DM.
I just happened to stumble across your videos friday night and have been trying to catch up on all of the older ones. Really enjoy what I've seen so far. Keep them coming.
I imagine each platoon has a banner carrier. Just like in Warhammer. But those banners are actually portable anti magic fields in order to protect our troops from magic damnation.
Or at least that is what I would certainly try in a fantasy world like d&d. 🤘🧐✨
and given the incredible expense and value of such an item it would actually justify the suicidal efforts to retrieve one that is sometimes seen in our history.
Broooooooo... I'm stealing this
For your archers, I suggest starting with Scouts. They have longbows and a lowish attack score, but can fire on targets up to 150 feet away. It's been one of the best tools I've had for slowing down the Barbarian at my table, who has mobile and 50ft base movement, as well as an ability that lets her move half her movement on a rage. Just getting to these enemies for melee can eat turns if they are broken up, and also serves as a way to separate the party's faster characters from their likely slower caster support...at least once, when the party realizes how much of an error that can be.
Scouts are a good start, but we don't want to just add more to the battle as the party levels up. Instead, have elite units with four sidekick levels from Tasha's (Doesn't even matter what class) and then swap their ASI for sharpshooter. Now these few enemies are capable of rolling normal attacks at 600ft. I use them to support melee attackers and scout the party in the wilderness, and they always fade away after four or five rounds of combat to avoid being chased down.
Let them fight smart, even if they're supporting meatheaded melee units. Give them mundane tools like caltrops and noise traps to protect their positions if the party does flank them. If they have more time to prepare, stakes, trenches, and pitfalls might also be used.
The goal is to split the party's attention, and make them consider cover and movement in what would otherwise be a straightforward brawl. In the end, they also serve as a rewarding miniboss antagonist when the party's plan and rolls finally allow them to catch these hated foes.
This style of encounter could serve to make the more mobile party members like rogues or monks shine. The ability to move past enemies and/or move far is a lot better if there's actually something worth getting to like some vulnerable archers. Of course if you wanna stop this for a bit of extra challenge you put up those stakes or whatnot to impede that strategy
Many DMs don't even use terrain, and this is one of my gripes against theater of mind. My biggest tip to making combat interesting: Roleplaying doesn't stop after initiative is rolled. Also, be ready before it's your turn. Players taking a long time to decide what to do can really drag down combat, making it boring for others.
My biggest pet peeve is when someone isn't ready on their turn.
Yes there are caveats. Some people have ADHD or the combat changed drastically.
But at least most turns you should have at least some idea of what you want to do.
One of my DMS had a sand timer for turns.
You had 1min to say what u want to do.
It worked well to speed up combat but then you lose the chance to give your action some thematic flair which was why we removed that rule.
Baron man you really put the pieces together on this one. Right when you said the word puzzle I was thinking how sometimes it feels like I’m trying to put a puzzle together without the picture on the box and you just provided that picture! Idk if I should tell you to get out of my head or be proud of the fact that I was getting on your wavelength, either way chilling and excellent!
1:39 Btw, in the battle itself, a little more happened before fighting started. Firstly, the English were silent and on watch the entire night before the battle (which was unusual) and were able to repulse a French attack. Secondly, before the actual fighting, Henry realized that the French were simply waiting. So, he decided to move the battle-line forwards, which caused the French to attack in an attempt to seize the initiative and catch the English with the hose unfastened. But the English were quick enough to set themselves up.
This is an awesome video, and so helpful! I’d love to see more for other battles and strategies, like positioning the monsters (formations and the like) or manipulating the players’ movements.
I'll likely do one for the battle of Hastings in the future
@@DungeonMasterpiece honestly a double feature on Stanford Bridge and then Hastings could be interesting since it can be used for dungeon complexes with multiple factions that the party have to deal with. Or just do the battle of Suiyang (of Decisive Tang Victory fame) if you can finagle a lesson out of that (though there are probably much better examples of siege warfare to use, that one is just kind of a meme).
@@Halrax_38 now THATS the comments I pay for! 🤣
@@DungeonMasterpiece Just checking in a few days later to see if my combat was replied to. I think the problem with siege warfare style adventures is that one, the existence of powerful individuals heavily favors small assault teams when defending large areas, and two, there aren’t really great rules for famine and disease in DND, even though these were huge parts of preindustrial life (though I’m sure a DM could come up with good ones in 5-10 minutes). There was even a strip in the Dragon Magazine line of Order of the Stick where a cult only ate one small bowl of gruel once every three days, since that’s what’s needed to avoid taking damage from starvation and there are no rules for taste. The idea of mid level PCs having to hold off against a numerically greatly superior but levelwise about the same enemy force while the government assembles an army to fight the enemy, with no daily limit on abilities as much as drain on material resources over months, sending spells being sent back and forth but nothing more than that, the government‘s only high level spellcaster teleporting food and soldiers in and civilians out, and either the PCs or eventually the government establishing cannibalism as the only way to win, seems like a really interesting and unique adventure. But you have to have a situation where the enemy army knows assault is so costly that losing the strategic initiative is necessary to win, but the defenders aren’t powerful enough to just wipe out the army. Plus the besiegest need supplies too, but they can just be undead or constructs or plants or whatever. And all of this is beginning to sound a lot more like the Battle of Alesia than the Battle of Suiyang, but regardless it’s an adventure scale thing, not a encounter level combat.
Simply mixing monster types can make a combat more fluid and challenging. Some monsters have obvious allies - the Goblin + Bugbear example given here - but Kobolds who tip over jars releasing Giant Centipedes, Zombies and Skeleton archers, Gnolls and Giant Hyenas, Hill Giants with Ogres and Orcs and Cave Bear pets. Best fight I threw at my party was a coven of Green hags with Werewolf servants, and a group of assassins who happened to be Wererats.
I've always approached encounters as puzzles and rarely give out experience as listed on the page. A few examples of the sorts of encounters that I created in the same dungeon. Note that this was built using Pathfinder 1e with sprinklings of abilities and customizations to keep combat interesting, taking inspiration from 4e D&D and FATE's aspect system for zones and the like.
In the first encounter, I introduced to a group of level 2 players one each of a goblin archer, goblin alchemist and a goblin shieldbearer. The archer had a directing attack. They'd each take three attacks, two of which would automatically miss, and force the target to take a 5 ft step, ignoring difficult terrain. The shield bearer's opportunity attack would stop all movement from anyone attempting to pass through a threatened square. The alchemist had alchemist's fire thrown through a sling. Each had very few hit points, so dealing with each would be simple enough and there was only 1 of each to give the players an idea as to what they were capable of.
The next notable encounter that they had to deal with two archers and two alchemists in a hallway that was filled with debris all over, creating difficult terrain through the hallway. The party's solution was to dip into a secondary corridor while prepping an entangle spell to deal with the goblins should they give chase or attempt to ambush. When they were chased, the party dropped the entangle on the goblins and threw a left over alchemist's fire on the entangling weeds to deal with all of the goblins at once. By this point, considering the party was learning quite a bit against these goblins, I awarded the party enough experience to gain a level.
The one before the boss of the dungeon involved a shield bearer, two archers and three alchemists which attempted to ensure that the party was funneled through a small entry way for the alchemists to rain fire upon them. The party's solution was a fog cloud through the entrance, an invisibility spell on the party's rogue, and a few of the alchemist's fires from previous goblins. The rogue snuck in and waited for the party to engage before tossing several alchemist's fires at each of the goblin alchemists. While normally this wouldn't be too big of an issue, the idea was sound and I prefer my players to think outside the box, so I ruled that the ammunition that the alchemists were using was unstable and went up with the ensuing blasts.
Absolutely love this.
So, I've been using Kobolds for years, to punch above their weight, with a very simple tactic.
Using groups of them, firing from cover, I have one take the Disengage action and run past a single party member. The rest of the Kobolds have readied actions, triggered by their teammate being adjacent to the target.
The net effect is that several Kobolds fire with Advantage on a single target, and the runner doesn't even provoke opportunity unless the player has Sentinel.
I don't use this to tpk a party, but it would usually work if that was my goal. I generally use it to simply impress upon the party that they are in dangerous territory, and should retreat. If pressed to the limit though, most parties don't figure out how to beat it until they've already taken a lot of damage.
There was a fun moment when I was DMing when I had a ton of blight monsters and a couple druids and berserkers. The players were pretty well picking off the bigger guys until I used a Fog Cloud spell to basically hide the entire battlefield. What I realized right after that was the blights have blindsight, which meant they became a serious threat to the players as they were striking blinded opponents. Thus was born a new tactic next time I get to play a Druid: Fog Cloud the enemy, then shift into the highest CR spider I can to hunt through the fog.
I love how sometimes these videos have the set up of a high school essay and then provide useful advice
*Opponents thinks tactically
Players: Wait that's illegal
My response to this is always, "if you can do it, so can the enemies."
Well they’re still not retreating, calling for backup, sending scouts out to find out why so and so hasn’t reported in…
You’re simply the best. Out of all the people offering DM advice and game stuff with all the silly gimmicks etc. I appreciate how succinct and thoughtful your advice is. Thanks for the help!
30 second rule. If your PC doesn’t know what they want to do in 30 seconds, lose your Fing turn.
When players feel confident physically getting up and going to the bathroom or getting a drink because it’s THAT persons turn, you know you have a problem.
Love the historical crossover for gaming. Bring battles back to the their war gaming roots.
Magnifique, je mettrai à coup sûr ces observations en pratique!
I'm pretty sure that if you remember all the existing mechanics(what counts as difficult terrain, how covers work, ambushes, spells that take more that an action to cast etc), you can have some good old wargame fun
Awesome video! Makes me think very differently about how I bolster my encounter design. I have already been doing some of this intuitively but this helps a lot to think about combat encounters as a dynamic puzzle with various levers to pull.
Its actually pretty amazing how many battles ended in surrender rather then total slaughter, which is why when I see live plays with absolute no quarter combat I'm a little weirded out why the DM or the players offer terms of Surrender.
I mean, people don't actually want to die....
The GM can make any system or level of combat fun.
You must play with some big groups to have all that going on. Our DM usually just has the monsters materialize within 30 feet of us out of nowhere and then they are in melee and striking us in round 1.
I tend to favor large groups of weak monsters in my combat encounters. I've been known to throw 120 kobolds at a level 10 party.
Materialising monsters seems to negate perception and stealth.
How would a assassin rogue or Gloomstalker ranger use some of their abilities in that scenario?
When u say big groups you mean big groups of players or enemies?
Even in 2 man parties I've found it more interesting to have the combat have some tactics and environmental challenges.
You had me at Agincourt
Josiah will be happy to hear you talk about Hobgoblin tactics.
I love this way of thinking!
5 Torches Deep also has a magic ability to "manipulate element" that I'm giving all my dragons from now on (up to 120'). That way, for example, the melee fighters must navigate shifting pools and rivers of magma just to get to the red dragon in his volcanic lair.
I dig your style, approach, and what you're about.
I could easily see this approach being generally useful. I'll save it for the adventure I'm planning. 👍
Great advice.
You listed a ton of great ways to challenge the player characters, and simultaneously avoided the spells that can completely shut down PCs, killing the fun.
Also, bonus points for the great 60 second synopsis of Agincourt. I don't think there's a famous battle that I see more badly and frequently mischaracterized than that one usually is. 👍🏻
I don`t want to say that this is how D&D 4th edition organized monsters and encounters, but .... this is how D&D 4th edition organized monsters and encounters.
4th gets a bad rap. If it were an rpg published on its own merit, unassociated with DND, it would likely win awards. It was just so NOT what people wanted out of dnd
My way of making combat interesting is to add an RP element to every combat and a skill check or two.
Rp- have a kid or npc tied up or hiding. Maybe the orcs eating their dead victims at the camp fire don't see the little girl hiding under the wagon but the players do. This allows the person with bluff to get the girl out from under the cart, telling her it's safe. It gives the players a goal to keep orcs away from the cabin. Then add something to let min maxers shine at their skill checks like trees to climb or something to push. This way, whatever player you have, has a moment in this combat.
The social player has the little girl
The tactic player wants the orcs to fight away from the girl
The show off can scale trees or roll a boulder to cut the orcs off from he girl
The Diablo fan, can just go to town like combat has always been
Great ideas, definitely going to adapt this for my kobold mine mini campaign coming up
Baron, you are awesome. Thank you.
The thing is what happens when both sides start doing this - trying to funnel the enemy into a kill zone. They draw up 'trenches' and trade weak blows with their longest range weapons. Once trenches are established the new tactic become dominant, such as out-ranging, out-lasting or breaking through.
Great analyze aside, I love the suit. Keep up the great work!
Great video, with some awesome suggestions. Keep up the good work :D
Got a nice chuckle out of "Don't give them fireball" xD
Always Love the historical references.
The 4e DMGs have great advices in this topic, people can really improve their 5e games by looking into 4e books
The Baron back with another lecture, thanks for studying history so I don't have to! Cheers!
That's a great breakdown of the battle. I didn't know that the field was icy and snowy.
Accounts argue the temp, but it was definitely cold and snowy
@@DungeonMasterpiece It certainly adds an extra dimension of horribleness to the battle 🥶🥶🥶
I'm going to counter argument and say that Fireball is a fine spell for NPC casters... but it should never be the first thing they cast. It's not even all that hard to come up with a reason why these spellcasters would wait until their second turn to cast fireball: They have buffs and field control spells to cast on their first round. As a DM I do my best to telegraph my caster's most powerful damage spells. "The goblin shaman completes his incantation and his bugbear bodyguard begins to move unnaturally quickly, he then withdraws to the rear exit and turns to face you, a look of determination in his eyes as fire coalesces in his hands."... That's all it takes for my PCs to realize that this goblin is going to cast some big fire spell on his next turn... (and if I'm planning wall of fire instead of fireball then I'll add mention that he poured a white powder from a pouch into his hand. An arcana check would reveal that to be the phosphorus component of Wall of Fire). If the party knows it's coming, they can spread their formation out to mitigate the damage... but if you spring it on them then there was no decision to be made, thus no tactical interest.
Nothing punctuates the extreme danger of leaving the enemy spellcaster alive like 8d8 fire damage, and honestly I consider crowd control spells like Web and Hypnotic Pattern to be far more... unfun for the player characters to deal with than the strategic dilemma of "we have to spread out or we'll take huge damage from fireball, but there's a hasted bugbear that is going to wreak havoc on our backline if we split up". Depending on the size of your party, a player could be waiting upwards to 10 minutes for your turn, so I try to keep any effects that prevent players from doing *anything* on their turn to a minimum.
How to kill your party 101 by Baron de Ropp, Mistress of Magma and Last of the Pink Feather Gouramis.
Good vid, well thought out
I'd like to remind you guys that manipulating the battlefield to hamper players' actions should be used ALWAYS with providing some alternatives in mind. Because otherwise it becomes a slog of a combat where melee characters without movement abilities just go "i use dash and go 30 ft upon difficult terrain" each turn while being barraged by enemies' ranged units. And stuff like that.
For example, if you place a wizard (or other obstacles) that manipulates the battlefield - make sure to include at least some non-linear solutions to the problems that it provides. Freezing the floor in the mansion so it becomes slippery? There can be a kitchen in the next room that have a vat of boiling water that was ready for dinner in the mansion.
If guys don't wanna go rushing into the problems you create - they should be given at least a hint of how they can improvise.
Reminds me of the importance of CC, crowd control. I used to play a PC game city of heroes where the controller class was devoted to simply locking down the opponents and controlling the battlefield. I've tried to do this several times in DnD and other gaming systems with various levels of success but when it works its devastating
A trick for running large battles is have it like a set piece... a back drop for what the players do. Like in assissan's creed or call of duty. Also do have stat blocks for each unit but do bog down the combat with endless grid based combat exacpt for set objectives. The rest a roll per player in what they are best at would be enough. Or if you want a more fluid combat have the simplied stat block with a single weapon spell for each unit. And give the players each a unit or have them intect with a overveiw map jumping around helping each unit... Maybe with grid combat.
Pretty much simply or script the overall battle and only enter combat a few times staying in naritive most of the time.
Do not forget that at Agiencourt the battle field narrowed approaching the English which forced the dismounted French knights formation in on itself restricting individual knight effectiveness. The knights lacked discipline crowding the battlefield seeking personal glory, honor while no field marshal existed to control troops moving on the field.
This is the answer to "How do you challenge a high level party". 4 Kobolds in a 60ft room if prepared well enough can absolutely destroy even a high level party. Poison, pit traps, bear traps, caltrops, swinging log traps, oil slick, and roof collapsing traps can alter the battlefield to the point where the party cant hit anything, they cant get close, and if they try there are a number of aspects to make advancing difficult. That encounter is well under a group of 1st level adventurers skills and yet with this set up you can humble a party of level 10 adenturers.
Why have I never thought to give the *monsters* more control spells? Smart
Great job & great advice
22k+ subs now. Keep up the great videos!
Running battles are also kinda of cool. Rarely in real life do two sides just show and a winner walk away. Having the battle move over hours or days could be a cool way to get the party to think more tactically in a broad way. Suddenly spells that seems meh can do a lot of stuff.
Dont forget the dead and dying horses all over the hillside.
You mean they don't deallocate from memory in 30 seconds!!??
Any ideas on translating to Thearter of the Mind style play?
informative video more of this please 🤺🎲
Leave-ridge
Stain-ging ground
to me it sounds like the key to victory at agincourt was facing braindead commanders. "my lord, the enemy is in a fortified position with a concave formation of archers on the other side of extremely difficult terrain"
"excellent send our cavalry alone in a head on charge"
"sir, the cavalry is being slaughtered"
"hmm signal their retreat and send our infantry through the mud into the concave"
"sir, the infantry have been surrounded and have all surrendered"
"do we have any more troops i can sacrifice to the english?"
"no sir"
"very well offer our surrender"
this is zap branigan level tactical thinking.
I think we should give the French more credit here. This was the first time barricades were used in this way to halt a heavy cavalry charge in any widespread mass combat scale. Additionally, advances in bow making recently made the English longbow have incredible power most bows didn't have (and couldn't penetrate heavy cavalry armor of the day). Additionally, from the bottom of the hill through the fog, it likely didn't appear there was a baricade through the snow fall, and it would have been difficult to see while charging full speed on horseback through a visor.
The English were also outnumbered some 3.5:1, and entirely without cavalry for a counter-flank maneuver.
If it weren't for such clever use of the terrain and the weather being just right, I'm sure the French would have all but eliminated the English in that first wave.
@@DungeonMasterpiece you should always give the benefit of the doubt, it's just there were A LOT of factors making the attack the way you described a bad idea.
the leaders of the cavalry units would be primarily to blame, either not controlling their men or straight up ordering the charge.
armies forming up against each other and just not doing anything until one of the two commanders decided they held the definite advantage was common throughout history, the cavalry commanders should have known this (being educated, particularly in roman history which was full of this) and pulled back the second they came under fire. reorganize and let the french army's overall commander re-asses the situation. given the hill, terrain, fog, enemy formation, and time being on their side the attack wouldn't have been ordered that day.
also off the top of my head the battle of the golden spurs between the french and flemish rebels saw the french knights slaughtered running into a prepared position of cavalry spikes and this was after a successful infantry attack to weaken the Flemish line. happened 113 years before agincourt.
it's a great video though, and wonderful advice for the game.
I couldn't concentrate. My attention was too drawn to that sweet ass map
It is pretty damn sweet isn't it
Very nice. 👍
Both D&D 4e and D&D 5e, unlike the Archers at Agincourt, started all combats at melee range. The English Archers (Long Bowmen), whittled the French Knights and French Infantry down to size before they got to combat range, but 4e and 5e D&D players never get that option.
Great ideas!!
Great video. This will fix larger combat encounter and make them more interesting. But the best cure for boring DND combats is to look at a game that actually does combat well. DCC har the right idea. Solid crit (that scales with levels) and fumble tables, mechanics that let you do anything you can think of (Fighter deed die, ingenuous!) and a greater risk of makes the combat more exciting. Magic also has insane potential but using it comes with a great risk. Every roll has some added element other than: you loose x-amount of HP. DND should take notes.
I feel like you could do the impossible and make a social studies class interesting.
Hold my beer
So the general jist of it means keep archers protected and covered while melee come and focus the ones that threaten the archers while support like spell caster who change the environment so basically everyone’s doing a part for the rangers I think I got it
You do!
Flawless video
Great video
Awesome!
Interesting perspective!
My coworker, and good friend, who also has done adventure league releases at gen con and has won multiple awards for his dungeon mastering at conventions would 100% agree with your assessment of my channel. He hates it. Could you imagine working with me, let alone being very good friends of mine? I feel sorry for him, truly.
Dude. Major apologies for my comment yesterday. I barely remember even leaving the comment if that tells you anything about my night last night. You have a great channel. I still appreciate anyone that is jocking to provide content to new DM’s like myself. I despise people who get on these channels and do what I did, using the keyboard to hash out other issues they’ve got going on. Be encouraged! This stuff is good.
Great videos
Another great video! Shameless plug for Fate Core: creating advantage aspects with mechanical weight adds to interesting strategy to make epic combats.
"high ground" as an aspect! "Baricades" as another. "Rough ground" as another! "Ice and mud" as another. Invoke them all for plus +8!
Yes, this is how combat should be, not just a swing fest.
Buen trabajo!
Nice video 👍
Interesante, me gusta mucho la historia.
Excelente video
Good video! This is basicaly Matt Colville's tactics video but more succint, which I appreciate. How to avoid simply totally overwhelming the party this way, though?
Overwhelming the party? If they feel overwhelmed, they should run. 🤣 I'm a brutal DM haha
Make their values (hp, damage, etc) lower to give some room for error, or hint at weaknesses and counters to the tactic. Hopefully, players will learn and come up with them on their own over time.
When thinking about combat, there are 3 general categories I use:
1. Mindless monsters (zombies, skeletons, and the like), they just attack the first thing they see
2. Combat troops (guards, soldiers, thieves, thugs, rogues, etc.): They know basic tactics, protect the ranged, spread out to avoid fireballs, cover each others flank, retreat and reposition, use barricades, high ground, etc.
3. Rivals, Bosses, omniscient beings, etc. (bad guys who are level 20 wizards, beholders, those who have fought the party before and know what the party is capable of, etc.) They fight super dirty, set up complex ambushes and traps, move in a way to avoid attacks of opportunity, leverage what the party loves (ie. a captured NPC friend of the party, etc.).
Not every combat needs to be as hard as possible, but the monsters should try the best they are reasonably capable of. I always run the monsters as hard as I can justify in the lore, and just turn the HP dial or the number of monsters dial as needed. Except bosses, they're ruthless. Don't underestimate your players, they have 4 or 5+ brains, you only have one. I assure you, they'll find creative ways to win if you reward creative tactics.
Also, teach your players these principles a bit at a time. If they’re less experienced or bad at tactics, start showing them how weaker smart monsters use tactics to negate their advantages before having tougher monsters appear forcing the players to adopt the tactics they saw to win.
Also, consider having just “melee, ranged and cover”, and let them learn that before adding difficult terrain and enemy spellcasters.
@@TimothyEdwards I have played very little dungeons and dragons over the course of my career, as an actual player. I'm glad that I had the DM that I did. I remember the first time I said to him, "I'm not sure we can defeat all these monsters!" As if I expected the combat encounter to be nerfed. His response: "Well, do you want to be a little bitch and run, or do you want to stand here and die?"
I never looked back. Been DMing that way since.
Oh and I never looked back. I fuckin ran. 🤣🤣
Baron, i like your videos and content. I instantly subscribed when I found your channel.
But I need to say (and i reeeeeally don't mean it in an offensive way) but the way you move while speaking reminds me the way a muppet moves.
That's all 😅😅
Keep up with the great work you do 👍👍👍
He only discussed the tactical elements, but the fights in the original Star Wars Trilogy were much more exciting than the Prequels (excepting Obi-Wan's second duel with Vader) because of the dramatic effect and investment in the characters and villains. I think this has much more to do with making combat meaningful than the tactics, which the Prequels were technically superior.
Espectacular
excelente!!
Excelente
Súper este video.
Short sharp no wasted ammo. Target cease fire
I hope my players get better at battle tactics so I can unleash some brutal stuff upon them
Muy bien video
thats crazy
you are really master d:-)d
Combats are a hit point slog unless you think outside the stat block. Create environmental or conditional effects. Things like fog, mud, underwater environs, and the like will force both sides to adjust unless that's their native environment. Darkness and dim light are often "magically" abated by a misinterpretation of Darkvision, so a proper understanding of this condition can really change a combat.
Creatures should be considered for their innate abilities as well, such as their size, movement types, and their base strength or intelligence. An Ankheg erupting from directly below a Gnome turns standard combat into a viewing of Tremors. A giant throwing a PC across the battlefield becomes a reply of Game of Thrones. Fighting Sahaughin in their native underwater environment becomes Jaws, Deep Blue Sea, or other water based terrors. Think cinematically.
Tactical situations or plans (like a set piece battle in open terrain) are often instantly defeated by PC ingenuity, so I tend to not count on those moments. Most players would likely just move around a force through the woods, or cast fireball to blast those hiding behind cover.
We've all see the "Tuckers Kobolds" combat before, and I know how much PCs hate it. I still use it from time to time, but do not make a major combat out of it, as it makes players feel like they don't count as I needle small amounts of their health from them over time. If the PCs enter a situation like this voluntarily, well, that's on them. Needle away.
I do agree that the players and opponents, regardless of who they should be, should consider the environment before any combat. Those that fail to do so will typically lose.