DMing something tactical. I am not...

[Toy Killer]

Now, to preface; I've played D&D for over 15 years now. I'm more then familiar with playing something smarter then I am. It's easy as a DM: I happen to know the realm better then any of the players.

However, something more Tactical then I am is... infuriating...

I have a faction that I want to instill fear into the party when they encounter them. I want them to be forced to re-imagine the battlefield and know that they have to perform top notch.

One of the 'Boss' fights will be reemerging occasionally and is a refluffed druid. I know how to use the battlefield to my advantage, and one of the biggest boost to their fights is they will make it snow. However, I don't want to simply face them off into fights where they are automatically in lower sitting and they can't step up to them. It just feels... rail-roady, I guess.

Any suggestions?

[mattie_p]

Making it snow automatically triggers snowcasting + snowsight, in my mind.

[Deathra13]

Unfortunately playing tactically is always going to mean hitting them when they are at a disadvantage. If you want to instill fear of this group and do it by raw. A few suggestions come to mind.

If they have any scrying they should use that to prepare for things they know the pcs will do.

Also having them hit the pcs as they are preparing to rest/using guerilla warfare.

A tactical mind will whenever possible select and prepare their battlefield as well, pit traps make for a good way to force a single file line but can be negated by a smart party. Having a thief take a few of the parties resources before the battle is also a good route to go. Possibly even having him be seen/chased with an ambush waiting, most parties wont take proper precautions when chasing one and a couple aoos is a good way to start a battle.

Making it snow is good provided proper preparations are taken and may encourage the casters to attempt to use counterspells if they run into this group regularly. (assuming magic for maiking it snow)

For now thats all Ive got, good luck.

[GreenETC]

I definitely like the Scrying and preparing for the party's usual tactics, especially if someone has an obvious tactic like a Rogue/Tripper/Charger. There are very few things more demoralizing and mind-halting, both for a player and a character, than having your usual tactic shut down through the way of better organization and planning, especially if it's something as simple as pits, nets, or tactical party separation.

[Amnestic]

Check out the Teamwork Benefits section in PHB2 for a few ideas. I'm a fan of Massed Charge and Missile Volley (+1 attack per participant for all participants, must focus on one target) personally.

Add in a few of the Charge-focused maneuvers/stances from ToB for extra effect. Double bonus if they all have Pounce :smalltongue:

[Legendairy]

With regards to your "rail-roady" feeling, it is going to happen it will force your players to think tactically as well and they will have to do it better than you. Remember running is always an option, if they are losing horribly let them retreat. Now they will know about the snow tactic and have I prepare accordingly. If this group is as tactical as you want then the players just have to fight that up hill battle. Keep in mind the players can do all the scrying and same tactics. I think you have an awesome premise and I like being a player forced to think tactically, could just be me but it adds such another element to combat beyond hack and slash you just don't see enough of. One last thing to remember the players do t HAVE to face down the Druid in snow they can turn the tables try and pick off the scout teams and outside perimeter guards and be a thorn in the the bbegs side and force them to come to a place the players have prepped for their style of combat.

Great ideas Toy. I dig your posts lol, sorry for any grammatical errors, posting from my phone.

[ArcturusV]

Well, there's three aspects to making a proper "Tactical" battle feel in DnD. It sounds like you have a grasp of at least one, maybe two. As I see it you have:

1) Inflict your will upon the enemy.

2) Combine Arms to be greater than the sum of your effects.

3) Control the circumstances of battle through terrain, natural or artificial.

So it sounds like you have a grasp on number 3 already. Number 1 is one you might have a grasp on, from the sound of it, but are loathe to actually put into effect for fears of upsetting your players. Number 2 sounds like it is nearly completely missing from the plan.

The hallmark of any real "tactical" battle, against an intelligent enemy (or even a moderately intelligent one with moderate wisdom, etc), is that they are making you fight the fight they want to fight, and the fight they are prepared to fight. This can be done a variety of ways. Battlefield Control effects are the ones most often mentioned and are a good starting point. But there's other ideas behind it. Misdirection is often key to something like this in DnD. Particularly if your team has a decent number of casters in it. Forcing them to blow their wad of spells before the fight actually starts is a huge advantage. And something that any reasonable enemy who knows the enemy contains spellcasters should be thinking of. Which they probably do because I've seldom seen spellcasters hide the fact that they are spellcasters. Walking around in Robes, with Wands, Staff, and Rods. As a druid your options for faking them out are a little less than ideal necessarily. There's not a lot of them out there for you (Compared to a wizard who can use Silent Image to make players waste A LOT of spells/powers in my experience). Though as a Druid you do have the advantage of abilities that can sap their resources in other ways. Spike Stones, Fire Seeds in Landmine Mode, Kamikazi Summoned Nature's Ally. All things that cost the Druid (Presuming a higher level) very little resources but can blow a disproportionate amount of the party.

Once they've wasted their good (Or at least mediocre) stuff on your pawns? Or having them just take damage on the chin because they don't want to be less versatile by spending resources? You're making them fight your sort of battle where you're at almost peek effectiveness and they are already handicapped.

It's point number 2 that most DnD games kind of fail at, in my experience. Mostly because Teamwork, Combined Arms, etc, isn't viewed very highly on the optimization scales and such. It's seen as more valuable to have the guy who can Charge/Pounce and full attack for insane damage. Or the Wizard who can solo armies or demons with equal ease. Most people, again in my experience, aren't too used to thinking about how to really work with others outside the broadest of strokes.

Which is why simple things I've run in campaigns have often just stymied players more than they really should. Shield Walls, Arrow Volleys, Slows/Disables combined with simple AoE. The players are set up for, and generally good for, fighting a Man to Man sort of thing. They're not really used to the concept that Enemy A is setting up Enemy B who is setting up Enemy C, outside of the very basic Flanking status.

It sounds like you're thinking solo druid for this. Which makes it hard to set up that sort of thing. Not impossible, due to Animal Companions and summons. Just harder. But even adding in something like a hired on group of 30 Archers to volley arrows, or a siege engine and crew to provide Artillery Fire adds a whole new element to a boss fight. Combine that with a few traps, a few Battlefield Control spells. And you've created the sense that the enemy is not only at least moderately tactical, but that facing him at this moment may not be the very best idea.