Looking for tactics handbook

[Captnq]

Hey...
I can't find any handbooks on tactics. What I mean is, for example:

When walking down a 10 foot corridor, the marching order should be...

When attacking someone in a corridor, you should focus on...
Or like an example:
1
{table=Head]X|X|X|X|X|X|X|X|
||||||||||
||G|G|||||||
||P2|G1|G2||||||
|||P1|G|G2|||||
||||P1|G1|G||||
|||||P2|G||||
||||||||||
||||||||||
||||||||||
[/table]

In this example, we see that G can focus attacks from three attackers on each of the P2s, but not so much on the P1s. However, P can only focus attacks on the G1s. Not only does G have numerical advantage, but making use of the right angles of the grid, they have successfully managed to bottle neck the Ps in a place where they can focus their melee attacks.

In fact, The G1s would do well to take a five foot step into the line of the Ps, thus providing flanking for the other Gs, while the G2s move up to fill in the holes in the ranks. Then the Gs can focus their damage on the outer two Ps and then turn their attentions on the inner Ps.

That's what I'm looking for. Anyone know where to find it, or do I need to write my own handbook again?

[Flickerdart]

There's absolutely no way to standardize this meaningfully in a game like D&D.

[Deophaun]

Unlikely you would find something like that, because D&D does not really work that way. I've made characters where their ideal spot on a battlefield was to be surrounded. That's entirely counter-intuitive from the perspective of general tactics, but that was how the particular characters played in those particular encounters.

That's generally why discussion of tactics is best left to the individual class handbooks; because those handbooks know how the builds are designed to play.

[Captnq]

If in the real world, with all the variables of combat, modern warfare can come up with volumes and volumes of information on the subject ranging from the benefits of a flying V maneuver to the best defense against an air assault, I imagine that D&D, with it's simplified combat rules where people move at 45 degree angles, can come up with a few examples.

[Captnq]

That's generally why discussion of tactics is best left to the individual class handbooks; because those handbooks know how the builds are designed to play.

Yes, but that's a CLASS handbook.

I'm looking for a discussion of GROUP tactics.

You know, DMs don't play PCs. They play NPCs. It might help the DMs if they, you know, had some examples of ways a crowd of mooks might surround and attack a player.

Holy crap, why does everything have to be about PCs around here?

You know what? Never mind. I'll write my own combat analysis. Just to show you that it can be done. The next time some Noob DM asks for help, He'll be reading my handbook, don't worry about that.

[Deophaun]

People also teleport, fly, burrow, run along walls, spider climb, go ethereal, throw up 8 identical clones, and turn into dinosaurs. And that's not even scratching the surface.

Real-life war gaming is very complicated, and it gets thrown into chaos when confronted with asymmetric methods. In D&D, almost everything worth worrying about is asymmetric.

Edit:

You know, DMs don't play PCs. They play NPCs. It might help the DMs if they, you know, had some examples of ways a crowd of mooks might surround and attack a player.
So... wait... I just told you about a PC that loved being surrounded by mooks, and your response is that DMs need to be taught how to surround PCs with mooks?

[eggynack]

If in the real world, with all the variables of combat, modern warfare can come up with volumes and volumes of information on the subject ranging from the benefits of a flying V maneuver to the best defense against an air assault, I imagine that D&D, with it's simplified combat rules where people move at 45 degree angles, can come up with a few examples.
Those seem to be tactics that are pretty specific to the type of weapons being used, and such is also the case in D&D. The tactics that apply to a wizard won't apply much at all to a fighter, and as players play one character instead of a whole party or army, they'll usually only care about the tactics relevant to their class, and if they want to know the tactics of their team mates, they'd just read something about a different class. Even a big fat book of D&D tactics would necessarily use class as the basis, so this way just seems more efficient.

A couple of the situations you presented have pretty intuitive and obvious answers, like how you should usually put the burliest characters around the edges, and have ranged and squishy characters away from the engagement, and how in targeting you should aim at enemies who provide danger to the party, and who are easier to kill. However, other questions, like your bottleneck question, are a bit on the unanswerable side, because the answer could be anything from summoning a creature to the backs of the enemies, or creating a silent image of a walrus. A general case is difficult to find when the variety of actions available to any particular character can potentially be so disparate.

[nedz]

Any of these

Epitoma rei militaris (Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus)
The Art of War (Sun Tzu)
The Book of Five Rings (Miyamoto Musashi)
The Art of War (Machiavelli)
On War (Carl von Clausewitz)

[PraxisVetli]

Yes, but that's a CLASS handbook.

I'm looking for a discussion of GROUP tactics.

You know, DMs don't play PCs. They play NPCs. It might help the DMs if they, you know, had some examples of ways a crowd of mooks might surround and attack a player.

Holy crap, why does everything have to be about PCs around here?

You know what? Never mind. I'll write my own combat analysis. Just to show you that it can be done. The next time some Noob DM asks for help, He'll be reading my handbook, don't worry about that.

Well Capnq, I've nothing really helpful for you. I do however, look forward to another great handbook!