initiative hurting the party

[Chugger]

I've noticed a problem where each party member rolls separately and the badguys either go all at once or maybe in two groups - like if they're a mix of ghouls and zombies the ghouls go and then the zombies later.

But all ghouls go at once on their turn, and all zombies go at once on their turn.

Anyway, the problem is that one player meleer rolls high and goes first - and runs up to the badguys and hits one. Then, maybe a bow rogue goes next and shoots that one - and it's hurt.

But now it's the monsters' turn, and they focus attacks all on the first meleer who ran up. And kill him - well, drop him to zero.

Then the party's other meleer runs up and whacks a monster, and then the rest of the party casts spells or positions or w/e. Hopefully someone heals the first meleer who went down. And then we baaarely hold the line. Barely. With our meleers both dying and popping, dying and popping - and the line doesn't really hold - some of the badguys go into our backfield and go after the bow rogue or the sorc or w/e.

It seems to me to be a function of badguy-gang-initiative. And players having initiative bonuses. Some player always rolls an 18 and then adds 4 or 6 to it and is way out in front. Other players have no bonus at all, so if they roll a 7 it's a 7 - and odds are they're going after the monsters.

Do you all encounter this, and if so what can you do about it? Ready moves? First guy goes up and casts (if he's an EK say) blade ward instead of attacking - or mirror image? What if he can't do any of that? Is there any game mechanic that lets characters coordinate turns?

Well, I have some other thoughts, but I'll not say them for now - maybe some of you can come up with much better or help me see something about this situation that I'm missing.

[Kane0]

Yeah its a strategy thing most of the time. Dont go running straight into a mob without help.

You can try side or round-table initiative but you still end up with bundles of creatures acting in sync. Or the dm can split the monsters down into multiple inits more, or run less in a particular encounter

[DanyBallon]

Have you tried other variant of initiative? Speed initiative and the much hated Greyhawk initiative might lower the initiative count of your melee character, and he won't be able to place himself in a dire situation. But like a previous poster said, it's more a strategy problem than an initiative one.

[hymer]

Yeah its a strategy thing most of the time. Dont go running straight into a mob without help.

I agree with this. Only the raging barbarian or the eldritch knight with shield (or other sufficiently tanky characters) should move up to the attackers and get ganked.

Personally, as DM, a lot of my monsters will be happy to have maybe half their number swarm an outlier, while the rest head for the squishies in the rear. And that will be the real reason it's a bad idea to go too far away. It lets your opponents manoeuvre. But it depends on the monster. The ghouls you mention would be very happy to let the zombies wade into melee with the PC melee guys, while the ghouls pick priority targets. If the zombies were all alone, they'd each just head for the nearest opponent they can find and attack mindlessly.

From the PC side, it really helps to have a ranged weapon or attack of some sort handy. A couple of javelins or daggers can really help in not wasting your actions, and not breaking formation.

[Citan]

I've noticed a problem where each party member rolls separately and the badguys either go all at once or maybe in two groups - like if they're a mix of ghouls and zombies the ghouls go and then the zombies later.

But all ghouls go at once on their turn, and all zombies go at once on their turn.

Anyway, the problem is that one player meleer rolls high and goes first - and runs up to the badguys and hits one. Then, maybe a bow rogue goes next and shoots that one - and it's hurt.

But now it's the monsters' turn, and they focus attacks all on the first meleer who ran up. And kill him - well, drop him to zero.

Then the party's other meleer runs up and whacks a monster, and then the rest of the party casts spells or positions or w/e. Hopefully someone heals the first meleer who went down. And then we baaarely hold the line. Barely. With our meleers both dying and popping, dying and popping - and the line doesn't really hold - some of the badguys go into our backfield and go after the bow rogue or the sorc or w/e.

It seems to me to be a function of badguy-gang-initiative. And players having initiative bonuses. Some player always rolls an 18 and then adds 4 or 6 to it and is way out in front. Other players have no bonus at all, so if they roll a 7 it's a 7 - and odds are they're going after the monsters.

Do you all encounter this, and if so what can you do about it? Ready moves? First guy goes up and casts (if he's an EK say) blade ward instead of attacking - or mirror image? What if he can't do any of that? Is there any game mechanic that lets characters coordinate turns?

Well, I have some other thoughts, but I'll not say them for now - maybe some of you can come up with much better or help me see something about this situation that I'm missing.
Well...
Thanks for this excellent "counterpoint" demonstration of why going GWM as a martial is not always the best choice (or why dual wielders with throwable weapons can be the best martials). XD

Seriously, I understand it's puzzling you that every creature of the same species get the same Initiative. But it's just a way to make things go faster as a DM (usually), and it can be understandable too fluff-wise (all creatures sharing the same base characteristics, and probably being alerted of your presence all at the same time).
Now if you feel this is really a problem, talk to your DM out-of-game and ask him to add a bit of probability by making a few creatures actually roll individually. This individuality could be easily explained through what the creature was currently doing (so less reactive), or maybe it has some special trait, or whatever really.

Beyond that, the problem lies with your group I'm afraid: if you have only one or two people as frontliners and they rush without trying to anticipate enemy movements by taking Initiative, equipment and other features into account...
Or if you casters have ways of strongly buffing them (Haste, Shield of Faith, Bless) or dividing the field (Wind Wall, Wall of Fire, Plant Growth, Fog Cloud, Darkness)...
Problems are to be expected. :)

(And frankly, if I had someone like a GWM EK or Barbarian always stupidly rushing and getting swarmed, I'd let him die on the fourth try. Nobody can save someone that has suicidal wishes. Even GWM martials should still have a few javelins or light hammers on their belt to dish out some damage while keeping the minimum distance required to avoid swarms, or even just when distance to contact prevents any melee attack in the first turn).

Let's try a "group thing": start the next encounter with the preconception that "things will go hairy fast", maybe just keeping this in mind will help everyone tread carefully on the field and coordinate with each other's features. :)

[Slipperychicken]

I think this is more a problem with the high-initiative players being trigger-happy and rushing into dumb situations just because they're first.

That player should be thinking a few steps ahead, and maybe decide that he'd be better served waiting for another party member to go first before charging in.

Back in the day, we had the idea of delaying initiative, where you can voluntarily reduce your initiative score by waiting for a good moment. If we're going to stick with dnd style initiative, It might be a good idea to bring that back.

[Chugger]

It's AL so I get different people each time. And some of them ... kind of go Leroy Jenkins fight after fight, and I'm starting to hate it. If they'd at least shout something funny, but they don't.

Yeah, I get it's a game-play-time thing - that monsters go at once. Back when I played DnD from the pamphlets that came in the white box, we just rolled initiative for sides - DM against one designated player. That was better imho, but I can't change how AL works. And doesn't work, because it's very hard to get certain players to even see that this is a problem. And as we level up it gets worse. I guess it's going to take a TPK to teach some of them - meaning do I escape and run if I can, if it gets that bad (my character will be able to in most cases)?

I literally play (sometimes) with one character who reads off his sheet where he wrote "I'm rash and impulsive and do things without thinking" - and he solo-charges a wall of badguys.

Given AL and given it's like herding cats to organize the other players in any sensible fashion, I'm wondering what the options are ... and one of them is to start over with a very very tanky character. Yeah, like an EK with shield or a bear barb. Or a sorcadin can have shield and lots of slots.

It's better when a DM lets you see the initiative order (or know it), but not all of them do that. I'm starting to write down inits on paper so I can keep a sense of them, once I know them ... but again tactics and some of our meleers are oil and water. Their sheets say "I roll like I'm dumber than a sack of hammers" - and so they do. If you can think of simple tactics that I'm missing ... thanks.... (edit it's not always crazy - sometimes we get an excellent player/char mix and people role play enough to make it fun but not so much that they make gigantic tactical blunders and threaten a wipe - but other times .... yeah, it's bad...)

[DanyBallon]

It's AL so I get different people each time. And some of them ... kind of go Leroy Jenkins fight after fight, and I'm starting to hate it. If they'd at least shout something funny, but they don't.

Yeah, I get it's a game-play-time thing - that monsters go at once. Back when I played DnD from the pamphlets that came in the white box, we just rolled initiative for sides - DM against one designated player. That was better imho, but I can't change how AL works. And doesn't work, because it's very hard to get certain players to even see that this is a problem. And as we level up it gets worse. I guess it's going to take a TPK to teach some of them - meaning do I escape and run if I can, if it gets that bad (my character will be able to in most cases)?

I literally play (sometimes) with one character who reads off his sheet where he wrote "I'm rash and impulsive and do things without thinking" - and he solo-charges a wall of badguys.

Given AL and given it's like herding cats to organize the other players in any sensible fashion, I'm wondering what the options are ... and one of them is to start over with a very very tanky character. Yeah, like an EK with shield or a bear barb. Or a sorcadin can have shield and lots of slots.

It's better when a DM lets you see the initiative order (or know it), but not all of them do that. I'm starting to write down inits on paper so I can keep a sense of them, once I know them ... but again tactics and some of our meleers are oil and water. Their sheets say "I roll like I'm dumber than a sack of hammers" - and so they do. If you can think of simple tactics that I'm missing ... thanks.... (edit it's not always crazy - sometimes we get an excellent player/char mix and people role play enough to make it fun but not so much that they make gigantic tactical blunders and threaten a wipe - but other times .... yeah, it's bad...)

If they want to play their melee tank dumb as hell, then let them be, and let them die from their poor tactical choice. After a few time, they may finally learn to not dump Int and play their character a bit smarter. In war hot headed fool don't last long, unless they're real lucky.

[Aett_Thorn]

Yeah, then this isn't really a problem with initiative, but with the players. If the PCs do stupid things without thinking, there isn't much that you can do, and no amount of changing up the initiative is going to work. Plus, trying to get an AL DM to change up how initiative works probably won't go anywhere, either. Your only hope is that the players will learn to not be stupid. So good luck with that!

[Unoriginal]

Well, Chugger, one thing I think is a key factor here is how dangerous big chunks of foes are in 5e.

If you take two encounters with the same CR, the encounter made of several weaker foes is often going to be tougher than one with a the stronger solo foe. It can be mitigated by AoE spells or the like, but even at the best of time you still risk to get the small fries to pile on the PCs and the PCs to either have to expend ressources to get them or needing several turns to wipe them all, allowing them to get lucky shots in.

Even in the situation where all enemies rolled initiative independently, you'd still have the problem of quite a few of them acting in-between PCs.

Now, I've never tried it, so I can't say how efficient it is, but here's a tactic that might work:

When you see a "Leroy Jenkins" type, give them a backup ranged weapon to use at the start of the fight

[Citan]

If they want to play their melee tank dumb as hell, then let them be, and let them die from their poor tactical choice. After a few time, they may finally learn to not dump Int and play their character a bit smarter. In war hot headed fool don't last long, unless they're real lucky.
+1. As I said, nobody can save a suicidal person from killing him/herself.

UNLESS, of course, you consider this could be actually a fun challenge for you. In which case a Crown Paladin (Channel Divinity, Compelled Duel) or Light Cleric (Warding Flare, Warding Bond, Shield of Faith) would work probably. Also as the healer, you could make them learn a lesson by making them beg for stabilization or making them pay in hard cash.

[Vogie]

Even in the situation where all enemies rolled initiative independently, you'd still have the problem of quite a few of them acting in-between PCs.

Now, I've never tried it, so I can't say how efficient it is, but here's a tactic that might work:

When you see a "Leroy Jenkins" type, give them a backup ranged weapon to use at the start of the fight

That's probably the best idea. Add a hand crossbow, a javelin, or something that gives them agency when far away from the fight, without explicit instructions to do so. Of course, they still have to actively avoid being swarmed. Because it's AL, it may still take them a couple deaths to figure it out, though...

[EvilAnagram]

The main problem with the example in the OP is that the PC is running thoughtlessly into a mob. That's easily fixed by spreading them out over the battlefield.

[Sir cryosin]

+1. As I said, nobody can save a suicidal person from killing him/herself.

UNLESS, of course, you consider this could be actually a fun challenge for you. In which case a Crown Paladin (Channel Divinity, Compelled Duel) or Light Cleric (Warding Flare, Warding Bond, Shield of Faith) would work probably. Also as the healer, you could make them learn a lesson by making them beg for stabilization or making them pay in hard cash.

A Vhuman with alert feat high dex cast hold person on them if they try to go Leeroy Jenkins. You can also jack your self up on hp and temp hp cast warding bond on them.

This could make for a great comedy duo. A duffing bard that does everything he can to keep his fighter from dying. And the fighter gives caution to the wind. The fighter always say as he charges into a fighter live fast and died unexpectedly.

[Haldir]

As a DM I rarely roll monster initiative, instead choosing when would be most thematic for enemies to act. Also delayed initiative needs to be a thing. Like, absolutely.

[Sjappo]

Initiative is weird like that. I usually play high dex PCs and I have to go first a lot. It's very hard to decide what to do when going first. You don't know the ini-count of the opposition. Going first, charging and getting swamped sucks. But going first, waiting, and getting stuck on the back row because the enemies went last sucks as well. Wasting your turns in the process.

What I'm trying to say is; going first is not easy. It's the melees job to get in front. That means they'll get mobbed eventually.

You might want to inform your fellow players of the Ready action. That way they don't have to charge ahead blindly, just step to the front and ready to "pummel the first enemy that comes into range".

[alchahest]

when you've got a mob of all the same type of creatures, I like to put the bulk of them where they rolled and then part out some between each of the PCs.

like if 10 goblins and you have a roll of 12, put five of them at init 12, and seed the remainder between PCs. It's not a perfect system but it does spread out the hate a little bit, and gives players a little more control over which monsters to attack (if I attack this one, it'll give us a bit of breathing room etc etc)

[Slipperychicken]

Another thing to consider is that 5e is really forgiving in fights. You can get slapped down to 0 forever if you have healing. The braindead tactics likely aren't resulting in PC-deaths anyway, though they might later if something changes about the situation.

If I didn't see the group changing its ways, I'd either let them fail or make a healer cleric.

[alchahest]

that depends entirely on level and number of enemies. you get pushed down to zero, and enemies can give you autofails on your death check. if they all go on the same initiative, then there's a good chance you'll have no way to prevent it.

[Slipperychicken]

that depends entirely on level and number of enemies. you get pushed down to zero, and enemies can give you autofails on your death check. if they all go on the same initiative, then there's a good chance you'll have no way to prevent it.

There's also a big question of the GM's willingness to actually do that.

[alchahest]

Sure. but the DM in question also doesn't need to have all the goblins gang up on the easy prey and drive them to zero. The rules are pretty clear about ways it is very easy to die (Especially in situations with many opponents acting on the same initiative). Just because they don't have to doesn't mean the rules don't exist.

that's like saying fireballs aren't dangerous because wizards don't have to cast them.

[sir_argo]

Forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of choke points. My group rolls separate initiative for each monster (Roll20 script) so we don't have the core issue to begin with, but we also are always looking for a choke point that will limit how many mobs can get on our front line. And if the mobs do group up, there's always AoE from the casters.

So to the OP's question, I'd recommend two things. Roll separate initiative for each mob if practical (really isn't practical if you're not using something like Roll20) and look for choke points.

[spinningdice]

GM-centric compromise - Have monsters go as a block rather than at once and use your init roll as the medium (or first result) - i.e. 6 goblins roll 13 for init, have them go on 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10. Gives at least a chance of breaking up the block, without having to remember lots of initiative results.

Most GM's allow delaying initiative, though it's not really in the rules. If you can't Delay, you can Ready, so you can smack the first thing that comes into reach.

Obviously if playing online you have other ways of managing initiative as per suggestions for roll20 above somewhere.

[Easy_Lee]

For a given encounter, if your DM rolls monster initiative as a group, he should roll player initiative as a group. I realize that few DMs do this, but this is the result. Creatures (the DM) are able to coordinate better than players can, moving and attacking as a single unit.

Can the players do something about this? Sure. Have the first person to go hold an action to hit the first enemy who comes within reach, or step forward and take the Dodge action. Can you expect players to be savvy enough to do this? No. Can you be savvy enough to suggest it? Absolutely.

[Contrast]

I would suggest your DM clumps the enemies into smaller groups. I'd say 2-3 enemies to a group is more sensible, merging them down the initiative order as guys get killed off.

Only slightly more work for the DM but makes the combats less 'you go, we go' and makes the enemy feel more like individuals than one mass with lots of bits running about.



Readied actions are unfortunately a little clunky as while you can ready to dash along when your friend moves as well, this does mean you're missing out on attacking that turn which does feel a bit of a waste. The dodge action is a thing if running into the maw is required.

[Chugger]

I can't change what DMs do. I can with diplomacy and caution gently coax the players into doing something different. So thanks for all the advice - a lot of great solutions if this prob arises in a home game, for example.

We do have mobs broken into 2 or more groups, but it doesn't much matter if it's say 4 type x and 3 type y. The meleer solo-charges them all - or charges x - and then if it is x's initiative, they drop this meleer to zero. Now if I were playing a cleric I'd healing word him while doing a cantrip or moving with my action - but I wouldn't be casting silence on their caster or guiding bolt or spi wea or something more useful.

Also we sometimes have meleers with PaM, and I have seen a reaction attack (for a monster entering his range) go off once - yes once - all summer long. Once. Let that sink in a moment. Once. That means that high init characters are always charging the badguys' line and never giving them a chance to come at us. I think these players can't think beyond "I hurt them before they hurt me", but what happens, as we all know, is that they hit for 1d8 + 4 and miss their second attack - and then here comes the pain train.

It's just that when we have a tank go to zero on round one it is a problem. Especially if we don't have a good healer in the party, which can be the case.

We also have a problem because our casters are all blasters and don't see the value in divide and conquer. No one picks hypnotic pattern or darkness (which is of mixed use but can force their back ranks up into melee range). When a druid does entangle or spike growth it can be awesome, but that's so rare.

The thing is I'm still getting to know the pool of people who play and DM. And they kind of cycle in and out based on real life and stuff. Some of the DMs want to throw very challenging critical points at us but seem not to understand that we can't handle them if half the party is using harmful tactics. So yes, it's a diplomacy problem.

[Tanarii]

If the monsters are all rolling initiative, the flow of combat is always monster all go, party all goes. The only exception is the first round, when some of the party may get to go before the monsters, once. But after that it's monsters, party, monsters, party.

If someone is going before the monsters, they need to take into account that potentially only some of the party gets a first turn, then it'll hit the rotation, monsters, party, etc.

Honestly it's simple enough alternative to make initiative a "do you get a turn first" on round one, allowing any players that beat monsters to go once in any order, then monsters in any order, then all players in any order. It's a little more powerful for the party that way, and becomes a pain if something comes into play part way through the combat (conjured creatures, more enemies) and needs to roll initiative. But it still allows the same number of turns per creature, and 'sides' still go in the same order.

Although if you're playing in AL, you're probably stuck with gung-ho players chargin in when they win initiative on the first round.

[WickerNipple]

I usually try to make my encounters so the enemy have the same or similar number of initiative slots as the players.

[FreddyNoNose]

I've noticed a problem where each party member rolls separately and the badguys either go all at once or maybe in two groups - like if they're a mix of ghouls and zombies the ghouls go and then the zombies later.

But all ghouls go at once on their turn, and all zombies go at once on their turn.

Anyway, the problem is that one player meleer rolls high and goes first - and runs up to the badguys and hits one. Then, maybe a bow rogue goes next and shoots that one - and it's hurt.

But now it's the monsters' turn, and they focus attacks all on the first meleer who ran up. And kill him - well, drop him to zero.

Then the party's other meleer runs up and whacks a monster, and then the rest of the party casts spells or positions or w/e. Hopefully someone heals the first meleer who went down. And then we baaarely hold the line. Barely. With our meleers both dying and popping, dying and popping - and the line doesn't really hold - some of the badguys go into our backfield and go after the bow rogue or the sorc or w/e.

It seems to me to be a function of badguy-gang-initiative. And players having initiative bonuses. Some player always rolls an 18 and then adds 4 or 6 to it and is way out in front. Other players have no bonus at all, so if they roll a 7 it's a 7 - and odds are they're going after the monsters.

Do you all encounter this, and if so what can you do about it? Ready moves? First guy goes up and casts (if he's an EK say) blade ward instead of attacking - or mirror image? What if he can't do any of that? Is there any game mechanic that lets characters coordinate turns?

Well, I have some other thoughts, but I'll not say them for now - maybe some of you can come up with much better or help me see something about this situation that I'm missing.

They need to play a bit smarter. Don't save their bacon so they die and have a chance to learn something other than the DM will save them from their stupidity.

[Chugger]

If the monsters are all rolling initiative, the flow of combat is always monster all go, party all goes. The only exception is the first round, when some of the party may get to go before the monsters, once. But after that it's monsters, party, monsters, party.

If someone is going before the monsters, they need to take into account that potentially only some of the party gets a first turn, then it'll hit the rotation, monsters, party, etc.

Honestly it's simple enough alternative to make initiative a "do you get a turn first" on round one, allowing any players that beat monsters to go once in any order, then monsters in any order, then all players in any order. It's a little more powerful for the party that way, and becomes a pain if something comes into play part way through the combat (conjured creatures, more enemies) and needs to roll initiative. But it still allows the same number of turns per creature, and 'sides' still go in the same order.

Although if you're playing in AL, you're probably stuck with gung-ho players chargin in when they win initiative on the first round.

I'm stuck with them, but I'm not necessarily stuck with their behaviors. People do change - sometimes.

I think I mostly need an easy-to-explain substitute tactic and a way to blend it in with their traits and all that.

[Thrudd]

If the initiative scores aren't secret (they generally aren't), and it's known how many creatures will be going on what initiative, then the players have all the information they need to make appropriate decisions. Unfortunately, people are at different skill levels in terms of tactical thinking. I think the solution to this is to play out the scenarios exactly how the rules and the dice dictate. The only way for these players to get better is to experience loss. They will get tired of losing and being dropped on turn one, and will get smarter about how they play. A DM that changes the rules or goes easy on them will never help them realize their mistakes or become better players.

As another player in this group, make suggestions on how to approach the combat. If the players listen to you and get better, good. If not, you tried. That's all you can do, really. Play as smart as you can, help your party how you can, and any deaths can really not be laid on your shoulders.

[Chugger]

If the initiative scores aren't secret (they generally aren't), and it's known how many creatures will be going on what initiative, then the players have all the information they need to make appropriate decisions. Unfortunately, people are at different skill levels in terms of tactical thinking. I think the solution to this is to play out the scenarios exactly how the rules and the dice dictate. The only way for these players to get better is to experience loss. They will get tired of losing and being dropped on turn one, and will get smarter about how they play. A DM that changes the rules or goes easy on them will never help them realize their mistakes or become better players.

As another player in this group, make suggestions on how to approach the combat. If the players listen to you and get better, good. If not, you tried. That's all you can do, really. Play as smart as you can, help your party how you can, and any deaths can really not be laid on your shoulders.

They experience loss but don't seem to care - or rather those few of us who know our stuff save them over and over. We have to give them healing potions when they miss death saves instead of damaging. Maybe I need to talk to the DMs about how half the players optimize and use tactics and half use negative tactics. And are very much not optimizes - which is okay - yes 5e is forgiving. But if you're not optimized and you charge a wall of badguys solo and you don't have any form of Shield or damage mitigation besides AC 18 (or worse - some are twohander fighters) - gah. You're zero. And heck even if you're optimized but have no damage mitigator, you're zero or badly hurt doing this.

(edit, some of them seem to think that optimizing is somehow "bad" and leads to stagnant play, and that it's role playing that saves the day - but imho it's a proper blend of the two that works. Too much RP gets boring fast, but yes, sterile tactics-only - you might as well be playing those old hex-grid war games. I don't think some of these people realize that the lower levels are forgiving of horrible tactics but as you level, the game very quickly becomes much less forgiving)

[Thrudd]

They experience loss but don't seem to care - or rather those few of us who know our stuff save them over and over. We have to give them healing potions when they miss death saves instead of damaging. Maybe I need to talk to the DMs about how half the players optimize and use tactics and half use negative tactics. And are very much not optimizes - which is okay - yes 5e is forgiving. But if you're not optimized and you charge a wall of badguys solo and you don't have any form of Shield or damage mitigation besides AC 18 (or worse - some are twohander fighters) - gah. You're zero. And heck even if you're optimized but have no damage mitigator, you're zero or badly hurt doing this.

(edit, some of them seem to think that optimizing is somehow "bad" and leads to stagnant play, and that it's role playing that saves the day - but imho it's a proper blend of the two that works. Too much RP gets boring fast, but yes, sterile tactics-only - you might as well be playing those old hex-grid war games. I don't think some of these people realize that the lower levels are forgiving of horrible tactics but as you level, the game very quickly becomes much less forgiving)

I don't think it's even about optimizing. It doesn't matter whether your character has the best possible mechanical abilities or not, it just matters what you do with the information on hand - doing what an actual person would do in the situation the characters are in with the tools the person has. If they decide "role playing" means their character acts like a suicidal imbecile, well I guess that's a decision they are allowed to make - but are these players surprised or upset when they get dropped or killed? They shouldn't be. "Role playing" means acting from the point of view of your character, as though the fictional world is real to them. IMO, acting without thought in combat is not good role playing, for a character that is meant to be competent and to have a sense of self-preservation. The problem is either players that are conditioned by video games to think the only option is to attack first and fast, or who believe that since they are the heroes of the narrative that whatever they choose to do will work out favorably, or both. If I were the DM, I'd make a point to disavow people of these beliefs.

[Chugger]

The optimizing part kicks in when you're a meleer and you haven't much invested in any of the melee stats - i.e. you have a +2 to hit and damage and only a +1 to hp from 13 con. So a round that would have left a 14 or 16 con meleer with 3 hp and the chance to disengage and get behind the rest of us to drink potions and get back in the fight later - or something - leaves the non optimized person at zero.

The main problem is what else would a non-optimized meleer do but charge in? Can they ready action in a sensible way? Can we ask the DM to have linked inits for our "line" - if they'll go for it. At this point I'm not even sure what my options are because I'm thinking "hyp pattern - hunger of hadar - darkness - twinned hold p - something to try to control the badguys - even a fog cloud..." - a lot of these people would survive if they'd just run up and dodge or run up and shield or run up and blade ward. Well, maybe it's a losing battle.

[Tanarii]

If they're outnumbered and have AC 18, forming a line (possibly with 5ft between each melee) and dodge is a decent tactic for your first turn. The biggest danger is getting AoEd or grappled. But if you're facing multiple melee, you can make a bunch of them waste attacks on you, at the cost of only your one action.

Next turn when the entire party gets to act before the monsters, they can advance in a coordinated fashion, or just attack if the enemy came to them.

If they're charging in to get one attack when they're outnumbered in melee and taking a bunch of counter attacks in return, then it's on them. There are other options. For starters, you guys can withdraw in good order and try something different. Like maybe taking some time to actually plan your tactics, based on what you're facing.

I hate to say it, because it's kinda prissy, especially in public play, but if they're recklessly endangering your team and forcing you to burn through resources that can be better used than propping them up, you can always let them go down and stay down. Fix them after combat, if they survive. The only thing you're losing is a single attack at the beginning of combat anyway. Well ... and someone soaking a bunch of attacks on round one. So maybe wait until they've failed two death saves then save them, so they can be a one-shot meat shield in the next battle.

Edit: I'm suggesting this directly based on some of my players changing tactics last weekend, after their front line went down repeatedly to orcs, and the healer blew through 4xHealing Word in one combat trying to keep them up. After two were captured and the casters fled, they hired some more front rank warriors, then tried again. This time the Warriors held the Lind and dodged while the casters dropped stuff over the line. Orcs have +5 vs AC 16, so that dropped their chance of being hit from 45% to 20%. The front line were taking 2-3 attacks a round each with no hits, for several rounds in some cases.

(Obviously in retrospect I should have had an Orc or two attempt to grapple and pull them out of position. Maybe next time.)

[scalyfreak]

They experience loss but don't seem to care - or rather those few of us who know our stuff save them over and over. We have to give them healing potions when they miss death saves instead of damaging.

You do? There's a rule that says that? :smalltongue:

Speaking as someone who used the be the idiot melee fighter who charged straight into the fray without realizing the dangers, losing a character that way can be hilarious. And at other times sometimes it sucks, especially if everyone around the table makes sure to rub in how it was your own short-sighted stupidity that caused the character death in the first place.

That said, I would suggest utilizing basic tactics to save them instead of wasting potions. Use a round to grapple your the fallen comrade and move him/her behind the line to safety. If that's not an option, use cantrips, spells, or ranged weapons to lay down cover fire so no one can go near the melee idiot until you can drag him or her to safety. Don't worry about ranged attacks from the enemy, they have disadvantage, and it's better for everyone if you push for a quick victory anyway. The longer the battle goes on, the more death saves your fallen comrade has to make after all.

After the fight is over, take a short rest so they can spend hit dice to heal, and then move on. Potions are for emergencies, which this wasn't. This was just poor judgement, and a certain someone forgetting again that we work as a team here. And when they run out of hit dice, it's still not an emergency. It's an opportunity for a "do you think there's a way you can avoid having this happen over and over" conversation.

EDIT:
Basically, what Tanarii said.

[Thrudd]

The optimizing part kicks in when you're a meleer and you haven't much invested in any of the melee stats - i.e. you have a +2 to hit and damage and only a +1 to hp from 13 con. So a round that would have left a 14 or 16 con meleer with 3 hp and the chance to disengage and get behind the rest of us to drink potions and get back in the fight later - or something - leaves the non optimized person at zero.

The main problem is what else would a non-optimized meleer do but charge in? Can they ready action in a sensible way? Can we ask the DM to have linked inits for our "line" - if they'll go for it. At this point I'm not even sure what my options are because I'm thinking "hyp pattern - hunger of hadar - darkness - twinned hold p - something to try to control the badguys - even a fog cloud..." - a lot of these people would survive if they'd just run up and dodge or run up and shield or run up and blade ward. Well, maybe it's a losing battle.

I mean, a non-optimized character has weapons and armor and spells and stuff all characters have, even if they are 10% less capable than they possibly could be. Even an optimized character isn't guaranteed to survive charging alone into a group of enemies. What they can possibly do depends on each situation, of course, the only thing that is almost never a good idea is charging in alone to where you are outnumbered. Sure, why not hold you initiative until they can act with the others? Or move into a spot where fewer enemies can get them and ready an action to attack when someone comes in range, or take up defensive position where the characters can support each other and prevent themselves from being surrounded.

What you can do to help protect someone that is acting recklessly, I don't know, depends on the situation, too. I mean, you can at least try to convince the others to stay together, and then go heal the other guy after the fight is over. Just make the smartest use of your own abilities that you can, as a good example to the others.

[Tanarii]

Sure, why not hold you initiative until they can act with the others?
Part of the issue is that's not an option. Outside of the Ready action, there is no way to Hold your action. And Ready isn't the same thing.

You can certainly Dodge, and wait for your next action, when the entire party (including you) gets to act after the monsters. It's close enough to the same thing, you'll just act last instead of at a point of your choosing. But you'll still act before the monsters act again.

Unfortunately some players will insist this is a wasted turn. As if getting no more turns until someone expends resources to stand you up again is somehow better ...

[scalyfreak]

Unfortunately some players will insist this is a wasted turn. As if getting no more turns until someone expends resources to stand you up again is somehow better ...

This touches on an important point: The reason these impatient players charge straight into melee without waiting for the rest of the party is because we they want to be in the midst of the action. They want to be Achilles when he and the Myrmidons charged the beach of Troy.

If they pass out in the second round and have absolutely nothing to do but roll death saves for the rest of the fight, they will eventually get bored and tired of this bovine fecal matter. And at that point, they will change groups, or they will change tactics.

[Erys]

I've noticed a problem where each party member rolls separately and the badguys either go all at once or maybe in two groups - like if they're a mix of ghouls and zombies the ghouls go and then the zombies later.

But all ghouls go at once on their turn, and all zombies go at once on their turn.

Anyway, the problem is that one player meleer rolls high and goes first - and runs up to the badguys and hits one. Then, maybe a bow rogue goes next and shoots that one - and it's hurt.

But now it's the monsters' turn, and they focus attacks all on the first meleer who ran up. And kill him - well, drop him to zero.

Then the party's other meleer runs up and whacks a monster, and then the rest of the party casts spells or positions or w/e. Hopefully someone heals the first meleer who went down. And then we baaarely hold the line. Barely. With our meleers both dying and popping, dying and popping - and the line doesn't really hold - some of the badguys go into our backfield and go after the bow rogue or the sorc or w/e.

It seems to me to be a function of badguy-gang-initiative. And players having initiative bonuses. Some player always rolls an 18 and then adds 4 or 6 to it and is way out in front. Other players have no bonus at all, so if they roll a 7 it's a 7 - and odds are they're going after the monsters.

Do you all encounter this, and if so what can you do about it? Ready moves? First guy goes up and casts (if he's an EK say) blade ward instead of attacking - or mirror image? What if he can't do any of that? Is there any game mechanic that lets characters coordinate turns?

Well, I have some other thoughts, but I'll not say them for now - maybe some of you can come up with much better or help me see something about this situation that I'm missing.

Generally, for my table, if its a large combat I use group initiatives. PCs all go- in order by their initiative score; the mobs then go (or vice verse depending on who is initiating combat). Back and forth.

Easier book keeping when your managing a couple dozens mobs.

[snickersnax]

I have a monk in my group that has a high dexterity and a good AC. He almost always wins initiative and almost always gets to the bad guys first due to increased movement speed. He is however one of the greatest heroic characters in the game. He is always trying to draw melee or archery fire and actively taunts the opponents when he runs in. He will run into a group of 4 to 8 on his own. Taking the dodge action. If an enemy can hit him, which is rarely, he has luck. On subsequent rounds he often takes dodge as a ki bonus action. He can single-handedly turn a fight that was probably close to an easy victory for the players.

[Tanarii]

This touches on an important point: The reason these impatient players charge straight into melee without waiting for the rest of the party is because we they want to be in the midst of the action. They want to be Achilles when he and the Myrmidons charged the beach of Troy.
It's worth noting in the movie, they advanced as a shield wall, and at the appropriate time volley missile fire. Then they charged.

[scalyfreak]

It's worth noting in the movie, they advanced as a shield wall, and at the appropriate time volley missile fire. Then they charged.

Because the Myrmidons in the movie aren't morons. However, players charging head-first into a melee situation without considering tactics, most certainly are.

[Chugger]

I have a monk in my group that has a high dexterity and a good AC. He almost always wins initiative and almost always gets to the bad guys first due to increased movement speed. He is however one of the greatest heroic characters in the game. He is always trying to draw melee or archery fire and actively taunts the opponents when he runs in. He will run into a group of 4 to 8 on his own. Taking the dodge action. If an enemy can hit him, which is rarely, he has luck. On subsequent rounds he often takes dodge as a ki bonus action. He can single-handedly turn a fight that was probably close to an easy victory for the players.

This is _not_ what I'm talking about. This kind of behavior would be great. I'm talking about people who can't think tactically and/or can't work as a team and solo-charge the wall of badguys - do nothing defensive - cause 8 points of damage to one of them ... and then get ganked to zero in one round. Round two we are down one tank. In my past several adventures I think I've spent more time pouring healing potions into zero'd meleers throats than I have doing damage - which is not what I signed up for. Some players are willing to work with me, but it's almost impossible to have a say in who is at your table or not. Some players are so insanely defensive and sensitive that they treat any request to behave reasonably as a personal "attack." Am reaching the point where I have to find something better to do with my time. This is probably not a battle I can win.

[DevilMcam]

One option could be ta take feats/abilities that help you get on top of initiative (or an other of your friends)

The alert feat with +5 init is an obvious choice for this, but Initiative being a dexterity check Lucky can help you reroll it if it's low,
If given enough notice the enhance ability : dex spell can give you advantage on it.

Portend (Divination wizard 2), and cutting word (lore bard 3) can help lower the monster initiative, while the guidance cantrip could help pump yours of one of your other good willed friends up. This is certainely edgy but it beeing a cantrip nothing really prevent you from chain casting it to have it up all the time and be availlable for init. Talk with the DM about it, he might be okay with it or not.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

It seems to me to be a function of badguy-gang-initiative. And players having initiative bonuses. Some player always rolls an 18 and then adds 4 or 6 to it and is way out in front. Other players have no bonus at all, so if they roll a 7 it's a 7 - and odds are they're going after the monsters.

Not anywhere near as much as you'd think. A common strategy for any monsters that aren't completely mindless is to focus all their attacks on one opponent until that opponent goes down, and going on separate initiative accounts won't change that. Afterall, it's one often used by players as well and they don't all share initiative.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Not anywhere near as much as you'd think. A common strategy for any monsters that aren't completely mindless is to focus all their attacks on one opponent until that opponent goes down, and going on separate initiative accounts won't change that. Afterall, it's one often used by players as well and they don't all share initiative.

I'd strongly recommend against springing this on players without warning, as this is not how any fight in movies, books, games, or anything else that draws new players to the hobby usually goes.

[scalyfreak]

This is _not_ what I'm talking about. This kind of behavior would be great. I'm talking about people who can't think tactically and/or can't work as a team and solo-charge the wall of badguys - do nothing defensive - cause 8 points of damage to one of them ... and then get ganked to zero in one round. Round two we are down one tank.

Is it mean of me to suggest that a character that averages 8 points of damage per attack, and routinely goes down in a single round, should not be in melee to begin with?

If you and the rest of the group aren't able to plan ahead for this kind of behavior, then I still maintain the best way to handle it is to just let them suffer the consequences. Stop saving them, or they will never learn. Easy for me to say, since I'm not there at the table, I know. I still suggest at the very least you start charging them for the healing potions. Wait until the battle is over, go through the unconscious guy's pockets for gold, and then pour the expensive healing potion down his throat.

[Slipperychicken]

Is it mean of me to suggest that a character that averages 8 points of damage per attack, and routinely goes down in a single round, should not be in melee to begin with?

If you and the rest of the group aren't able to plan ahead for this kind of behavior, then I still maintain the best way to handle it is to just let them suffer the consequences. Stop saving them, or they will never learn. Easy for me to say, since I'm not there at the table, I know. I still suggest at the very least you start charging them for the healing potions. Wait until the battle is over, go through the unconscious guy's pockets for gold, and then pour the expensive healing potion down his throat.

You can always take healer, and start pouring 5-silver healer kit charges on him instead.

[EvilAnagram]

Not anywhere near as much as you'd think. A common strategy for any monsters that aren't completely mindless is to focus all their attacks on one opponent until that opponent goes down, and going on separate initiative accounts won't change that. Afterall, it's one often used by players as well and they don't all share initiative.

Honestly, that's a terrible decision as a DM. You're essentially using meta knowledge about gamist strategies instead of treating enemies as characters who act as individuals. It's less fun for the players and makes no sense from a character perspective.

[Citan]

Honestly, that's a terrible decision as a DM. You're essentially using meta knowledge about gamist strategies instead of treating enemies as characters who act as individuals. It's less fun for the players and makes no sense from a character perspective.
Wut? What the hell is that?
It's absolutely not meta knowledge. Its basic warring wisdom.
That it gears the game towards "Battle as War" instead of "Battle as Sports" is another problem entirely (which should definitely be tackled in session 0 to define a common ground on which build fun, that we certainly agree).

Unless the creature are specifically known as overly individualistic and devoid of any teamwork, there is no reason why they wouldn't apply the minimum level of tactics you could find in any group.

Even some wild beasts like wolf hunt as a pack, coordinating each other to encircle the weakest identified prey. So why wouldn't any creature with something remotely resembling a brain?

Beyond that, there are indeed various degrees of tactical awareness that should be expected depending on the kind of group. Obviously a wild group of goblins shouln't behave as smart as an experienced group of mercenaries, of creatures that are all mind-controlled by the same high level Wizard.
But still...

Ganging up on one guy is not even tactic, it's "basic instinct" (pun intended). :)

[EvilAnagram]

Wut? What the hell is that?
Using out of character knowledge about techniques that work because of idiosyncrasies of the system rather than having characters act as characters.


It's absolutely not meta knowledge. Its basic warring wisdom.

That it gears the game towards "Battle as War" instead of "Battle as Sports" is another problem entirely (which should definitely be tackled in session 0 to define a common ground on which build fun, that we certainly agree).

Unless the creature are specifically known as overly individualistic and devoid of any teamwork, there is no reason why they wouldn't apply the minimum level of tactics you could find in any group.

Even some wild beasts like wolf hunt as a pack, coordinating each other to encircle the weakest identified prey. So why wouldn't any creature with something remotely resembling a brain?

Beyond that, there are indeed various degrees of tactical awareness that should be expected depending on the kind of group. Obviously a wild group of goblins shouln't behave as smart as an experienced group of mercenaries, of creatures that are all mind-controlled by the same high level Wizard.
But still...

Ganging up on one guy is not even tactic, it's "basic instinct" (pun intended). :)
There's a lot to unpack here, so let's address it piece by piece.

1: Basic warfare and basic instinct are not related terms. The way you behave in a battle is largely unrelated to, say, the hunting behavior of a wolf.

2: In combat, you don't pick out a single hostile and ignore all others. A captain commanding a company of archers wouldn't say, "Okay, guys, aim at the third one from the left, then move widdershins when he's down," nor would a SWAT team focus entirely on a single target in a multi-target scenario. Bar fights? You won't see everyone gang up on one guy unless there is only one guy to gang up on.

3: There is a difference between using basic tactics to isolate and attack threats in a group and using gamist techniques (e.g.: all six goblin archers focus fire on the druid because she has some nasty control and healing spells they haven't seen yet, ignoring the advancing fighter until they bring her down). Using tactics means utilizing terrain and abilities to address the threats you face. Ignoring other threats because you know the game mechanics favor focusing fire is a gamist strategy based on meta knowledge, not a reasonable use of tactics.

Edit: And this is not Combat as War v. Combat as Sport. In CaS, the party and goblins duke it out, but in CaW the goblins try to hit each PC with a poison-tipped arrow before retreating to lead the party over a tiger pit filled with snakes. The DM in the case I was talking about was treating combat with the goal of the DM trying to win rather than engage and entertain.

[Unoriginal]

Seriously, Chugger, buying an additional ranged weapon or a bag of caltrops and giving them to the guy you see go "let's turn off brain and charge in melee" is worth a try.

While they might argue that it doesn't fit their build, I doubt they'd really say "no" to free stuff.




3: There is a difference between using basic tactics to isolate and attack threats in a group and using gamist techniques (e.g.: all six goblin archers focus fire on the druid because she has some nasty control and healing spells they haven't seen yet, ignoring the advancing fighter until they bring her down). Using tactics means utilizing terrain and abilities to address the threats you face. Ignoring other threats because you know the game mechanics favor focusing fire is a gamist strategy based on meta knowledge, not a reasonable use of tactics.

Focusing fire on opponents with ranged weapons or on the adventurers who look like they're spellcasters when the melee combatants are not close is a perfectly valid tactic, thought.

Also, if the foes see an opponent that's super-tough, they are likely to focus on them to have a chance to kill them with number.

All in all, it depends of how the foes perceive the adventurers. For exemple, random brigands won't know who they are attacking, most likely, so they will rely on what they can deduce (ex: "this one has the biggest armor, probably a huge threat, let's have our best swordsmen on his case") but the minions of the guy who the PCs have been fighting since level 3 will probably be more informed.

[Decstarr]

Seems to me that the easiest solution to your problem in AL games would be if you play that high initiative run-in idiot who's really tanky and can help other high initiative run-in idiots to stay alive.
Or play a Diviner and change the idiot's high Initiative roll to a low one :P

I honestly think that if there's any game mechanic in RAW that doesn't need any alteration, it is probably the way initiative is being handled. The system is fine and any problems with it are caused by players or DMs rather than being systemic problems.

[Theodoxus]

If one of the players is willing to run initiative, i'm more than happy to roll each individual little opponent on their own number. But if I'm running group tactics and having to remember which is which in the initiative order on top of when they did it - and keep that in line with when the players are going? Oh hell no. My brain ain't no computer. And if it's a TotM game? Not happening - player help or no.

Before you complain about how a game is run, try running one yourself and see if your intentions come anywhere close to reality. As it is, I skip meaningless combats because it's a genuine hassle to get them up and running... 5 minutes of prep, 45 minutes of minutia tick marks all for 18 seconds of "in game time"? Yeah, no thanks.

[NecessaryWeevil]

In the absence of useful terrain features (chokepoints), and/or casters who know what "Crowd Control" means, melee guys are kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't. Do you run forward to take the fight to the enemy, and then get mobbed when the enemy goes? Or do you hang back, so that your casters take swords to the guts when the enemy goes because you're not up in their face?

Advancing and then taking the Dodge action is probably the best option, but it requires your DM to work with you a little. "Hmm. This big armoured guy ran up to me and is just standing there. I could fight him, but in the absence of any evidence that he's actually a threat, I think I'll just walk past him and gank that guy throwing fireballs."

[lperkins2]

There is a huge advantage to going as a group, especially if the DM doesn't preserve order within the group. This advantage exists even if the players know the initiative order, and is magnified by creatures which benefit more from combos.

Kobolds, for example, will hit far above their CR if they move as a group, simply because they will all get their Pack Tactics advantage (first one moves up and readies for an ally approaching, second moves up and gang beat commences). Normally, this can be mitigated some by the players realizing what's happening and adapting (first kobold moves up and readies, wizard comes up in initiative and blasts that kobold, who forewent his attack).

This problem has been discussed extensively already in this thread. What seems to have gone less noticed is the effects it has on the party's ability to plan, or perhaps more accurately, the monsters' ability to negate the PCs' plan.

For example, if the bard goes right before the group of monsters, Sleep is less than half as useful as it would otherwise be. He casts it, if even one of the enemies doesn't fall asleep, they wake the one nearest to them, who wakes the next, and so on. This isn't totally useless, since the bard trades one of his turns for shutting down some number of enemies for one turn, but it is far less useful than if the enemy actions are interleaved, letting the other party members auto-crit some of the sleeping enemies.

In my current campaign, in our first big fight, we ran into this issue. We somehow ended up with basically a party of all melee casters, which generally works well, but requires some degree of coordination from the players. Anyway, we got ambushed, so we're engaging from much closer than we'd like, and a lucky critical knocked the bladesinger out of bladesong, which had us starting the fight rather wrong footed. The other wizard walks over to a couple of the baddies, and drops thunderwave, knocking them both prone (even the leader failed his save). The players then curse, 'cause the baddies are up next in initiative, and both of them get back to their feet. In hindsight, he should have used a more damaging spell, but there really wasn't a way to have that spell work. There is no Delay in 5e; he could have taken the Ready action, but that requires his reaction, which is slotted for Shield since he's a wizard in melee range. He's also built fairly well for grappling, specifically to knock enemies prone, which was similarly rendered useless.

After that fight, we talked to the DM about how to fix it, and decided to go with side initiative. It let's the bad guys strategize the same as now, and keeps management of large battles simple, but lets the players do the same cooperative attacks as the NPCs can.

[MeeposFire]

Seriously, Chugger, buying an additional ranged weapon or a bag of caltrops and giving them to the guy you see go "let's turn off brain and charge in melee" is worth a try.

While they might argue that it doesn't fit their build, I doubt they'd really say "no" to free stuff.




Focusing fire on opponents with ranged weapons or on the adventurers who look like they're spellcasters when the melee combatants are not close is a perfectly valid tactic, thought.

Also, if the foes see an opponent that's super-tough, they are likely to focus on them to have a chance to kill them with number.

All in all, it depends of how the foes perceive the adventurers. For exemple, random brigands won't know who they are attacking, most likely, so they will rely on what they can deduce (ex: "this one has the biggest armor, probably a huge threat, let's have our best swordsmen on his case") but the minions of the guy who the PCs have been fighting since level 3 will probably be more informed.

I think that it really depends on what enemy we are talking about and it is not really all about intelligence either. For instance I could easily see hobgoblins choosing important targets but that is due to how they seem to have strong command structures and effective commanders. I think those commanders could see this this coming and issue orders to others which will actually be followed. By contrast orcs tend to be less in control and even if an individual orc saw a target that should be eliminated first the other orcs may not follow the order for various reasons.

[Chugger]

Okay how much AL have you guys played? I sense you're all trying to help, so I don't want to sound ungrateful - thanks, by the way, for caring and trying here. And yes, some of your points are well taken. I am actually inclined now maybe not to go save players with healing potions ... but that's against my alignment and ... it is tempting. And I'll leave it at that.

Sometimes, depending on the DM, the monsters don't gang up on one character and act more like dumb monsters. But sometimes we're fighting well organized humans - cultists and so on - cultists feature heavily in some of the modules. And they tend to be very smart and brutal. And use good tactics.

So my main problem is getting my fellow players to understand this and work together, because so far the initiative structure and the heavy "no meta playing" deal means that narcissistic behavior is encouraged ... er, did I just say that? Okay, maybe that's going too far (maybe it isn't) - but I really struggle to achieve any semblance of teamwork.

And yes, a major problem is that casters _do_ _not_ _take_ _control_ _spells_. All casters are blasters. Druids do not cast entangle, fog or spike growth or plant growth - the players don't even know what half these spells do! They cast barkskin and enter bear form or spider form and attack. Oh and they hand out goodberries and...never control. Wizards and Sorcs are all blasters - no fog - no darkness - no walls - no hypnotic pattern - and so on. They will take hold person sometimes (clerics have command sometimes) and several have had banishment at least.

But mostly the meleers rush forward - and hey maybe sometimes they do 14 or 17 points of damage. But if they have two 1d8 attacks plus 6, yeah, sometimes they just do 7 cuz they miss the other attack. And the Rogue uses a longbow and does a sneak attack and hides - missing or hitting it doesn't matter because none of the wall of badguys are killed or controlled. Now three or four of them go. They all attack the tank, who has good armor but didn't dodge - doesn't have shield - and they have 2 or three attacks and sometimes pack tactics - so a lot of them hit - and some have extra damage features. So the tank who went forward is hurt.

Now the wiz goes ... and he firebolts. Because this is the first fight and it's not supposed to be hard - and if I tell him to do something else I'm meta playing and get rebuked. And the wiz hits or misses it doesn't matter because no badguys die and now the other four go. And they swarm around the tank who charged forward and they also have multi attacks and enough of them hit to drop the tank to zero. Now we have a down player.

Now the other tank moves up ... and he's gonna drop next turn. And then on round three the casters wake up and blast. And waste a spell slot they didn't need if we'd done things differently. Or so I think.

And I'm not doing damage cuz no one wants to play a cleric (I'll have to start one I guess) and the pal tank is already at zero (he was gonna heal us somehow) so I'm gonna try to reach the body and give it a healing potion. And I end up doing this over and over. And even if I get these players to realize they're using crap tactics only one of them is at my table next week and .... I'm burning out. It's an AL problem is what it is. And sometimes the AL players are great and adventures go well - there are challenges - but we rise to the occasion - and it's fun. But these other ones ... they suck. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do for me, unless there is a simple to grasp action I can suggest - a method that is AL-okay to keep our line intact and get meleers to stop solo-charging the wall of badguys.

[DevilMcam]

If you manage to get on top of initiative, the spike growth spell, or some caltropsplaced between your team and the bad guys could do the trick

[Chugger]

If you manage to get on top of initiative, the spike growth spell, or some caltropsplaced between your team and the bad guys could do the trick

Good ideas. Thanks. I think I need to play what class I play to stay there.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Charging ahead with no backup is always a risky venture you need to play smarter then that. And if the only way to play smart is to meta.... then meta. And why does suggesting what another character should do have to be meta? In the Avengers you see Captain America leading his team and its not meta.

In comics, movies, TV shows, hero teams spend hours practicing off screen so they work together as a unit without having to exchange orders. (occasionally an episode or issue will be devoted to that practice).

Now here's the rub, after you've been playing with a group for a long time, you'll find you can play smart and cooperate with only the occasional suggested that can be summed up in one word. Something a character can easily shout in-game.

Another thing
The foes the PC's face are controlled by one mind who can and will coordinate them to attack like a well oiled machine something that would be very difficult for the PC's to do without "meta-gaming"

[Chugger]

Charging ahead with no backup is always a risky venture you need to play smarter then that. And if the only way to play smart is to meta.... then meta. And why does suggesting what another character should do have to be meta? In the Avengers you see Captain America leading his team and its not meta.

In comics, movies, TV shows, hero teams spend hours practicing off screen so they work together as a unit without having to exchange orders. (occasionally an episode or issue will be devoted to that practice).

Now here's the rub, after you've been playing with a group for a long time, you'll find you can play smart and cooperate with only the occasional suggested that can be summed up in one word. Something a character can easily shout in-game.

Another thing
The foes the PC's face are controlled by one mind who can and will coordinate them to attack like a well oiled machine something that would be very difficult for the PC's to do without "meta-gaming"

Aha, now someone is understanding the problem. Precisely. One mind is controlling the wall of badguys - and is using good tactics. And the group - have you played AL? Meta or even leading is frowned on. Each person is an individual player who can make their own decisions. Otherwise bullies will take over each table and ruin the experience for everyone - so - we have cat-herding-at-best - if you can even call party leading cat herding. AL has many good things about it, but this one is killing me. Also the DMs are doing this more and more lately - I don't recall this problem many months ago when I started AL.

Mostly I need the mechanism to suggest to the melee players before we start - a ready move - something. And then I gotta see if anyone will work with me. Well, I already know some players won't. They're hard-headed and difficult - I just have to cancel if they're at my table. And again....why am I even doing this ... I don't have a good answer for that any more.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Aha, now someone is understanding the problem. Precisely. One mind is controlling the wall of badguys - and is using good tactics. And the group - have you played AL? Meta or even leading is frowned on
I've been meeting with the same group of people once a week for a decade.... so no.


Mostly I need the mechanism to suggest to the melee players before we start - a ready move - something. And then I gotta see if anyone will work with me. Well, I already know some players won't. They're hard-headed and difficult - I just have to cancel if they're at my table. And again....why am I even doing this ... I don't have a good answer for that any more.
Phrase it different and put it in character,
"[name-here], if you rush a head they'll swarm all over you"
You didn't tell him what to do, you didn't lead him. You simply told him the consequence of his actions.

"An entangle or spiked growth between us and the bad guys would be really helpful right now." This is open ended not said to any one player in particular.

"Four orcs in a row, anyone have lightning bolt?"

So in essence point out the opportunity and see if anyone volunteers to take it.

You could also point out that its impossible for the PC's to fight tactfully without discussing tactics and ask that to play the enemy stupid so its at least fair.

[Chugger]

I appreciate you're trying to help. It will take me weeks to get any of them to take control spells, if I can do this at all. They don't seem to grasp basic tactics (the problem parties) - the good groups are very good and fine - I can't always group with them.

The main thing is how to form a line or keep a bad initiative from tearing us up when meleers feel they must move up but don't know the init order.

[scalyfreak]

And I end up doing this over and over. And even if I get these players to realize they're using crap tactics only one of them is at my table next week and .... I'm burning out. It's an AL problem is what it is. And sometimes the AL players are great and adventures go well - there are challenges - but we rise to the occasion - and it's fun. But these other ones ... they suck. I'm not sure if there's anything you can do for me, unless there is a simple to grasp action I can suggest - a method that is AL-okay to keep our line intact and get meleers to stop solo-charging the wall of badguys.

You're probably not going to like my suggestion on what to do: Stop going to these games. What you just described doesn't sound like fun, and if you're not having fun it's a matter of time before you're burned out.

If you can, start keeping track of who the non-stupid, non-selfish, players and DMs are, and see if you can get a regular group started with them maybe.

It sounds as if the AL tables you have access to used to be a lot better, and if that's the case then it's a shame that something that used to be fun has deteriorated to this point. But if you're not enjoying it anymore, don't let the selfish idiots destroy the fun of D&D for you.

[Aaron Underhand]

Using out of character knowledge about techniques that work because of idiosyncrasies of the system rather than having characters act as characters.
...
2: In combat, you don't pick out a single hostile and ignore all others. A captain commanding a company of archers wouldn't say, "Okay, guys, aim at the third one from the left, then move widdershins when he's down," nor would a SWAT team focus entirely on a single target in a multi-target scenario. Bar fights? You won't see everyone gang up on one guy unless there is only one guy to gang up on.
...

I have to take issue with this statement (while agreeing with most of your argument).

One of the key "principles of war", certainly as taught in Europe, is "Concentration of force". It is standard military tactics to apply sufficient force to each enemy unit as to ensure it ceases to be effective, before moving onto the next. This dates back to Sun Tzu. It is the mechanics of the combat simulation that make this into the "focus fire" effect we see, whereas in real life likely most opponents go down to a single solid hit.

[EvilAnagram]

I have to take issue with this statement (while agreeing with most of your argument).

One of the key "principles of war", certainly as taught in Europe, is "Concentration of force". It is standard military tactics to apply sufficient force to each enemy unit as to ensure it ceases to be effective, before moving onto the next. This dates back to Sun Tzu. It is the mechanics of the combat simulation that make this into the "focus fire" effect we see, whereas in real life likely most opponents go down to a single solid hit.

But in practice, utilizing this principle involves putting pressure on multiple units within the same engagement. If I had a kobold sorcerer split the party into two groups, ambushed the smaller group with four standard kobolds and set a dragonshield and the sorcerer to keep pressure on the rest of the PCs, I'd be applying effective tactics to eliminate the party, and most lower level parties would have difficulty with that encounter. That's an interesting and engaging combat experience, and it does not involve focus fire at all.

[Thrudd]

I appreciate you're trying to help. It will take me weeks to get any of them to take control spells, if I can do this at all. They don't seem to grasp basic tactics (the problem parties) - the good groups are very good and fine - I can't always group with them.

The main thing is how to form a line or keep a bad initiative from tearing us up when meleers feel they must move up but don't know the init order.

Say things like "don't go too far from the group, you'll get surrounded!", "Wait and let them come to us, so we can attack them together", "stay here, but ready an attack to hit the first enemy that gets close to you", "keep your backs to the wall so they can't get behind us!", "everyone attack the big guy first!", etc. Even if they don't listen to you, you tried.

[Citan]

But in practice, utilizing this principle involves putting pressure on multiple units within the same engagement. If I had a kobold sorcerer split the party into two groups, ambushed the smaller group with four standard kobolds and set a dragonshield and the sorcerer to keep pressure on the rest of the PCs, I'd be applying effective tactics to eliminate the party, and most lower level parties would have difficulty with that encounter. That's an interesting and engaging combat experience, and it does not involve focus fire at all.
So, you are completely dividing an enemy group, in order to let most of your own forces engage only the smaller part of the enemy. But this wouldn't be focus fire?

Please let drop the lies here. This is exactly focus fire, even worse than if you made it in one own big engagement because at least in the latter case, the party may have a chance to play its best tactics and coordinated moves or decide on how to split forces if needed.

Also, again, focusing fire on a single enemy is not metagaming on any level, it's applying the most basic survival reasoning ever.
When a fight is a life or death one, there is no honor, no rules, no nothing, except applying the following rule: "eliminate threats to my integrity as quickly as possible, with as little harm as possible to me". If your example of a group of Kobolds facing in a forest, a big armored guy that screams "I move slow but I hit hard", a lightly armored guy and a guy with plain cloths but a staff who weaves hands around...
Whether they feel advantaged or not overall, they would obviously focus their attacks on the no-armored one, unless some good reason like...
- They never faced casters before, so for them the staff guy is just too low a threat to be taken seriously...
- Or the heavy guy managed to create a threat in time (like, instead of a forest, everyone is in a small room), big enough to take priority.
- Or it's just impossible to focus fire because of relative positioning of each goblin (target out of reach) or the no-armored (maybe he hid behind a tree, or just crouched behind a cover, or has the armored guy shielding him).
- Or, however way they managed it, the 3-people group created such an apparent threat that goblins just decide to retreat without even engaging.

Simply because they know instinctively that "greater number of enemies = greater number" and the fastest way to reduce that number is to concentrate all possible power on a single target, starting with...
- The one who seem the weakest. Which, by looks only, is certainly not the guy with the chestplate and shield.
- The one that is the biggest/most immediate threat. Which is again, in a forest, certainly not the melee guy (split up and climb in trees or hide). So either the archer one or the no-armored one depending on settings and creatures.

Also, your point about bar fight is risible, because we were never talking about bar fights, which is the best example of chaotic, mostly non-life-threatening confrontations. So obviously it's not the same mindset.