Levels of Player Combat Tactics

[Zuras]

A post on optimized play got me to wondering:

What level of combat tactics do you see your players employ, and what do you consider the dividing line between basic tactics, tactical proficiency and advanced tactics?

Personally:
Basic tactics—players need to be at least this proficient or the DM may TPK them entirely by accident.

Focus fire on enemies to eliminate threats.

Understand that Long Rest resources should be saved for big fights and not blown immediately.

Proficient Tactics—Players understand the basics of focus fire, action economy, creature vulnerabilities, and basic character optimization. They start doing things like killing enemy Wizards ASAP, and hitting high AC enemies with save based attacks rather than trying to beat their AC.

Additionally, they figure out that some spells, like Conjure Animals, Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern and Spirit Guardians are significantly stronger than others at their level, and use them accordingly.

Advanced Tactics—Players start developing specialized tactics that make the most of their party composition, like making the most of the rogue’s sneak attacks with Commander’s Strike or Path to the Grave, ranged parties keeping opponents at a distance with Spike Growth or Plant Growth, and similar party-specific tactics.

Those are just my definitions, but especially for basic tactics, what is the minimum you need to see as a DM to keep from rolling your eyes, and what level of coordination makes you think the PCs are punching above their weight class?

[BoutsofInsanity]

Honestly, I find it really difficult to have my players do that. Mainly because most of my player's are martial characters so I don't currently have to combo.

However!

In the game I play in I combo'ed fog cloud with the Fighter's blind fighting style. Which was an incredible 3rd level combo for minimal resource drain.

--------------------------------------
I've seen a few where

Fighter and bad guy get force caged together for some one on one time
Obviously the Darkness + Devil Sight combo
Healing and choke points
Bless + GWM/Sharpshooter
Pass Without Trace and outflanking maneuvers


It's hard, when system mastery doesn't come into play all that often.

[Kvess]

Optimized builds tend to get emphasized over smart tactics.

One straightforward tactic that I don’t see frequently is disrupting line of sight. I actually surprised a DM by closing a door and barricading a room filled with low-level enemy casters — gave us a round to prepare while they tried to force the door open.

By the same token, if you’re a caster in the back line, breaking line-of-sight at the end of your turn by ducking behind terrain or into previously explored hallways is a very good idea, especially if you are concentrating on an important spell. Enemy archers and spellcasters have a harder time picking you off if they can’t draw a straight line to you.

[Kurt Kurageous]

The players are always learning. If you run a game that rewards tactical advantages (ex. flanking optional rules), you will get players using them. Especially if they see the monsters doing it to them. If you don't, they will learn how to succeed best in whatever you do run.

It all comes down to knowing what fun your players want, and giving it to them. You are a DM therefore you are an entertainer. No one failed in entertainment by giving the people what they want.

[Christew]

Varies wildly from table to table (and even player to player at said table) in my experience. For example I have a group of three relative noobs who are still very much in the "spirited charge all day" level of tactical development, grouped with an old hand whose system mastery allows his wildfire druid to save their bacon (while maintaining their spotlight moments) at least once a session. If they're all having fun, I'm having fun. I try to adjust my expectations to the group so as not to roll my eyes as much as possible.

That said, I think system mastery is a learning process that needs to be aided when appropriate. For example a PAM paladin was repeatedly standing within reach of her opponents, so I whispered to her explaining that backing up would grant her feat's AoO more often.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally:
Basic tactics—players need to be at least this proficient or the DM may TPK them entirely by accident. Hmm, that's an interesting criterion. :smallsmile:

Focus fire on enemies to eliminate threats.
Three of four groups I am with tend to do that.

Understand that Long Rest resources should be saved for big fights and not blown immediately.
I play this way, but only one other group I am with does consistently. Two groups for sure go big guns early and do things like up-cast magic missile with level 5 slot for tactically dubious reasons.

Proficient Tactics—Players understand the basics of focus fire, action economy, creature vulnerabilities, and basic character optimization. Two groups out of of four do although creature vulnerabilities is a bit meta gamey sometimes. That's a 'how does the table treat stuff like that?' case that really needs an at table agreement.

They start doing things like killing enemy Wizards ASAP, and hitting high AC enemies with save based attacks rather than trying to beat their AC. Barbarians don't do that second part, though. Nor do rogues, monks, fighters, or paladins (generally). If they figure out who the enemy casters are, most of the groups I play with go after them early and often.
Additionally, they figure out that some spells, like Conjure Animals, Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern and Spirit Guardians are significantly stronger than others at their level, and use them accordingly. Some do and some don't; I over-agonize on spell selection, though.

Advanced Tactics—Players start developing specialized tactics that make the most of their party composition, like making the most of the rogue’s sneak attacks with Commander’s Strike or Path to the Grave, ranged parties keeping opponents at a distance with Spike Growth or Plant Growth, and similar party-specific tactics. About half the time is a 'best I can hope for' though my bard (a support caster) does what she can with slow, hold person, wall of force, et cetera. A lot of players, I have noticed, have played enough solo Baldurs Gate or CRPGs or ARPGs that have a solo mode and it is hard to get them out of it.

Those are just my definitions, but especially for basic tactics, what is the minimum you need to see as a DM to keep from rolling your eyes, and what level of coordination makes you think the PCs are punching above their weight class? For most players I let them figure it out by trial and error, but a couple of players I'll occasionally drop a suggestion to since I believe that part of the DM's role is a bit of coaching when the DM is experienced.

My big thing is that any party who can't figure out the basics of combat:

Scouting / recon
Divide the enemy in to small groups and eat the elephant one bite at a time (for groups), which is related to
Economy of force, mass effects where it matters
Getting the minion/mooks to run away is good tactics so that we can off the bigger threats

Will get some coaching.

Lastly: if they don't pick up on the clues that 'we need to withdraw/avoid' and plunge in head first anyway, I let the chips fall where they may. There are the quick and the dead, but there is also the problem of the dim and the living.

Pet Peeve: if there's a rogue in the group, I will sometimes remind others (as a player and as a DM) "If you do this while you do that, the rogue can sneak attack" if they are oblivious to being part of a team and are playing solo-in-a-group.

[Pex]

Players who don't know will learn by watching me and others. When they don't know whom to attack I can direct them to focus fire and explain why. What I care about is learn what your character can do. Ask me which die to roll Game Session 1 is fine. Glad to help. Ask me the same question for the I lost count number of times Game Session 15 I want you gone. Purposely doing area attacks that hurt myself or other party members, especially after we tell you to stop, I want you gone. Asking permission first because you think that attack is necessary is fine. Allow me or others to say no and stick with that answer, but sometimes we'll say go ahead and take one for the team.

[KorvinStarmast]

Players who don't know will learn by watching me and others. When they don't know whom to attack I can direct them to focus fire and explain why. What I care about is learn what your character can do. Ask me which die to roll Game Session 1 is fine. Glad to help. Ask me the same question for the I lost count number of times Game Session 15 I want you gone. Purposely doing area attacks that hurt myself or other party members, especially after we tell you to stop, I want you gone. Asking permission first because you think that attack is necessary is fine. Allow me or others to say no and stick with that answer, but sometimes we'll say go ahead and take one for the team. This; nice and concise.

[Warder]

Focus firing may seem like basic tactics, but I've played for a number of years with a bunch of different people and to this day, the people who consistently focus fire are vastly outnumbered by the people who don't. I think that, more than most choices in combat, is something which is heavily influenced by roleplaying. Someone who roleplays a coward might focus on an immediate threat to themselves, someone who roleplays a protector might abandon a wounded target in favor of something that's attacking an ally, etc.

[Zuras]

I suppose the term “creature vulnerabilities” is a little vague. What I meant by it was awareness that different creatures are more vulnerable to different types of attacks, not “vulnerabilities” in the 5e rules sense. So more about melee focusing on low AC opponents while casters force saves on high AC opponents, and basic assumptions like enemies in full plate probably have worse Dex saves than Str and Con saves.

Creature specific stuff is more advanced tactics. In the non-metagamey sense, remembering stuff they learned in-game is often a major component of enjoying the tactical side of the game. Plowing through a horde of Zombies systematically thanks to better tactics in deploying your radiant damage after you struggled the first time is very satisfying. For those types of encounters, the main consideration is “are the players learning and responding?” Once you figure out how Trolls and Undead work, do you respond by ensuring you have sources of Fire/radiant damage? Do the casters prepare water breathing/water walking during water adventures, etc.— basically do the players learn?

[Valorant]

I see it this way. If your DM is planning deadly encounters and you trivialized them because you know system/mechanics so good and can also apply it to tactics: you are at peak of tactical gameplay in DnD 5e.

And mind: not all power gamers are also great tacticians that can think in creative ways. But if you are both then it's pretty much ez for the rest of campaign.

Also from my own 17 years of experience: most DM/GMs are totally not good tacticians and then absolutely are not RAW encyclopedias like power gamers. And that's normal because most DMs are storytellers, narrators and creative (fiction writing) people.

The mindset is the key. For example my wife is casual 5e player and when there is combat she just do stuff she think it's cool/good.

Me as power gamer I am already 3 steps ahead or all party members and DM, already I have plan how to trivialize encounter, I am at the same time countimg everything: initiative order, potential buff/combos, usage of movement and hex system, high ground, our and enemy weaknesses etc. For me it's battlefield. For players and my DM it's playground. I am not relaxed during combat, I am razor focused on winning with min effort for maximum effectiveness.

So I am example of highest level of tactical mindset while most players are average where they just do stuff they think is cool and fun. Which is fine, and they will learn in time watching me and listening to my advice. I consider it above average if they can use basic tactics like focus target and trigger sneak attack every turn or cast bless on SS/GWM player. Good players are the ones who start to use stuff like create choke points into flame spheres/wall of fire or having haste prepared for boss fights on martials or opening with Hypnotic pattern and all players know to focus unaffected>focus fire affected one by one. And then we have top people (usually power gamers/min maxers) with sickening radiance forcecage from sim, grapples into silence, ending turns in Paladin auras, using blind fighting style fog combos with crit fish builds, ready action spells to cast them in combos with other casters, using dimension doors to transport in combat your buffed heaviest hitter on boss face so your party nova does not waste turn or Glyph of Warding shenanigans, making sure you sentinel player is locking boss down while your Paladin is protecting him with aura from fear and your wizard is counter spelling boss whil cleric will place silence to not affect others but to have locked down boss in area and so on.

[MoiMagnus]

For our group:

Basic tactics:
(a) Don't engage dangerous enemies if you're fragile or low HP.
(b) Make sure to follow which teammate needs help and which is fine.
(c) Between equivalent choices, attack the most injured enemy.
(d) If a kind of enemy almost killed us in a previous fight or previous rounds of this fight, focus him so that it doesn't happen again.

Proficient tactics:
(a) If the fight is going badly, start focussing fire rather than just shooting the enemy that attacked you last (or looked the easiest to hit).
(b) If the fight is going badly, you might be forgetting some of your class features or spells, check them quickly.
(c) If the battle is going badly, consider organising a retreat with the remaining of the team. Alternatively, try to get some help from the allied NPCs.
(d) If the fight is going well, make sure to not forget which spell / feature you used to use them again in future fights.

Advanced tactics:
(a) Try to understand the other players' character so that you can give them advice in combat.
(b) Understand the mind of the GM to guess more accurately the what are the strength and weakness (both in stat blocks and in standard tactics) of the new monsters he created for this specific scenario.
(c) Give productive feedbacks to the GM at the end of the session so that those homebrew monsters are more reasonable the next time we encounter them. This might also be a good moment to complain if the unorthodox fighting style your character has been pushed toward due to "otherwise we just die" doesn't please you.

[Zuras]

Also from my own 17 years of experience: most DM/GMs are totally not good tacticians and then absolutely are not RAW encyclopedias like power gamers. And that's normal because most DMs are storytellers, narrators and creative (fiction writing) people.


Even DMs who are highly tactical players when on the other side of the screen have trouble with ideal tactical play. Almost every fight you basically have new characters, so you will seldom play optimally with them compared to a player who’s had the same PC for multiple sessions and only has the one character to worry about.

When I have DMed the same module multiple times at a convention, you better believe by the 3rd time through I had a much better grasp on the ideal tactics for each encounter. When I ran Tomb of Annihilation, the 3rd time I ran an encounter with some spellcasting Grung I absolutely tortured my players with hit and run attacks.
If you enjoy tactics, getting better at them (or at least feeling like you are) is a large part of the fun.

[Valorant]

Even DMs who are highly tactical players when on the other side of the screen have trouble with ideal tactical play. Almost every fight you basically have new characters, so you will seldom play optimally with them compared to a player who’s had the same PC for multiple sessions and only has the one character to worry about.

When I have DMed the same module multiple times at a convention, you better believe by the 3rd time through I had a much better grasp on the ideal tactics for each encounter. When I ran Tomb of Annihilation, the 3rd time I ran an encounter with some spellcasting Grung I absolutely tortured my players with hit and run attacks.
If you enjoy tactics, getting better at them (or at least feeling like you are) is a large part of the fun.

You Are an exception to this, believe me :)

[Zuras]

Even DMs who are highly tactical players when on the other side of the screen have trouble with ideal tactical play. Almost every fight you basically have new characters, so you will seldom play optimally with them compared to a player who’s had the same PC for multiple sessions and only has the one character to worry about.

When I have DMed the same module multiple times at a convention, you better believe by the 3rd time through I had a much better grasp on the ideal tactics for each encounter. When I ran Tomb of Annihilation, the 3rd time I ran an encounter with some spellcasting Grung I absolutely tortured my players with hit and run attacks.
If you enjoy tactics, getting better at them (or at least feeling like you are) is a large part of the fun.


You Are an exception to this, believe me :)

Must be very environment dependent, because a good majority of the DMs who also play at my tables are moderate to heavy optimizers. 5 of 6 at my regular table plus half a dozen more in pick up games. Granted the groups may be self-selecting. Of the local store scenes, the one closer to the military base, with more active duty and retired military, is much bigger on optimizing.

[Valorant]

Must be very environment dependent, because a good majority of the DMs who also play at my tables are moderate to heavy optimizers. 5 of 6 at my regular table plus half a dozen more in pick up games. Granted the groups may be self-selecting. Of the local store scenes, the one closer to the military base, with more active duty and retired military, is much bigger on optimizing.

Optimizer does not always mean power gamer and I highly doubt duty/military has anything to do with RPG/game tactics as real life tactics has nothing to do with games. Same as non top chess player or StarCraft player was a veteran or it did give any advantage. I am best example of that as I was also second place on chess nationals few years back. But I am from EU so we have different view on military. Most vets were just grunts. Tactic wasn't even their strong side probably when they were active.

So while I believe your circle may have more optimizers as DMs I don't believe their military past has any corelation with that. And I believe optimizer is not always good tactician in RPGs.

[Zuras]

Optimizer does not always mean power gamer and I highly doubt duty/military has anything to do with RPG/game tactics as real life tactics has nothing to do with games. Same as non top chess player or StarCraft player was a veteran or it did give any advantage. I am best example of that as I was also second place on chess nationals few years back. But I am from EU so we have different view on military. This not me disrespecting military people but we don't really glorify them either. And most vets were just grunts. Tactic wasn't even their strong side probably when they were active.

So while I believe your circle may have more optimizers as DMs I don't believe their military past has any corelation with that. And I believe optimizer is not always good tactician in RPGs.

Military=tacticians is not the correlation, it’s military=traveling a lot, so more interested in the concrete mechanics of combat and exploration, less interested in deep role playing, since they can’t stick with the same group for an extended period.

[Valorant]

Military=tacticians is not the correlation, it’s military=traveling a lot, so more interested in the concrete mechanics of combat and exploration, less interested in deep role playing, since they can’t stick with the same group for an extended period.

I understand but I still don't think this is the reason. DnD is strictly not PvP game so unless they only play in circles where everyone try to act against each other at table and they get experience by defeating everyone - I just believe they are good at the game. But this is not competetive game so it won't work like that. For example I don't believe I am better at 5e then I was few years back. 5e is still a closed system and there is no competetive side at table (there should not be in perfect scenario). Hell, I was to play with some hardcore DM who would like to best me RAW we would kill whole game with that level of toxicity.

DM should never play against players but with them. Otherwise you will kill the game.

[strangebloke]

Players who don't know will learn by watching me and others. When they don't know whom to attack I can direct them to focus fire and explain why. What I care about is learn what your character can do. Ask me which die to roll Game Session 1 is fine. Glad to help. Ask me the same question for the I lost count number of times Game Session 15 I want you gone. Purposely doing area attacks that hurt myself or other party members, especially after we tell you to stop, I want you gone. Asking permission first because you think that attack is necessary is fine. Allow me or others to say no and stick with that answer, but sometimes we'll say go ahead and take one for the team.

Yeah IME this is the thing. People figure out what works and what doesn't, especially if there's a more experienced player in the group. I played in a low level campaign with a bunch of noobs recently. There were a lot of occasions where I would do something slighty clever, like block a chokepoint and dodge, and you could pretty clearly see the party pick up on why I was doing it and why it was useful. The simple truth is, I wasn't smarter than them, I was just a bit more experienced. By the end of that short little campaign they were doing all the 'smart' things like trying to get surprise rounds, scouting with a familiar, using the right spells on the right sorts of enemies.

It was really fun to see!

Not everyone is interested in learning tactics, of course, and I frequently see such players gravitating over time toward simpler character concepts like a warlock or an archer.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Of course, learning and deploying good tactics requires a game world that is, at some level, observable and consistent.
If the DM isn't consistent in adjudicating environmental and spell effects, the players won't have good or elaborate tactics.

[J-H]

PCs are gonna PC.

My party is up to level 15 and just finished a very deadly battle (70,000 xp, 4 player characters killed and raised, multiple Fingers of Death, 2 PWKs at the party, etc.). They started at level 3 in Castlevania/Castle Dracula.

The monk has used Stunning Fist in one session, against one foe, ever. He's half archer at this point anyway (Kensei).
Nobody has ever used the Dodge action.
The cleric is still AC 17 because she isn't giving up her Session 1 Adamantine Breastplate. To be fair, it blocked 2 crits in that extremely deadly fight, including one from an Inflict Wounds. We use big crits (max + what you roll) so it saved her
about 46hp of damage in one battle.

They will focus fire sometimes, but rarely retreat in-fight. Once the fight was over, they did bug out instead of sacking the rest of the temple (multiple senior priests got away and were on another floor healing up).

Except the monk. He's going to charge at the nearby town SOLO and distract the garrison for a couple of minutes, which means at least 40 enemy soldiers and multiple casters, while the rest of the party leaves. We'll roll that out between sessions; he may be rolling a new character next week.

Sometimes they're smart, sometimes they're not, but whatever they pick, expect the unexpected.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sometimes they're smart, sometimes they're not, but whatever they pick, expect the unexpected. Sounds like a fun group. :smallsmile:

[Zuras]

I understand but I still don't think this is the reason. DnD is strictly not PvP game so unless they only play in circles where everyone try to act against each other at table and they get experience by defeating everyone - I just believe they are good at the game. But this is not competetive game so it won't work like that. For example I don't believe I am better at 5e then I was few years back. 5e is still a closed system and there is no competetive side at table (there should not be in perfect scenario). Hell, I was to play with some hardcore DM who would like to best me RAW we would kill whole game with that level of toxicity.

DM should never play against players but with them. Otherwise you will kill the game.


My inferences may be wrong, but they’re drawn from extensive experience of AL players in the area. It may seem odd, but there are definitely players out there who consider the crunchy stats side of their character sheet just as much a vehicle for self-expression as others consider the backstory. Some people love coming up with mechanically quirky builds that still perform adequately at the table, and the ones in my area all seem to work in IT or the military (or both).

[Frogreaver]

My take. What often gets considered good 'tactical play' is usually not. For example, Focus Fire is often an overrated tactic - because it tends to put team PC in a place where they can be focus fired as well.

I would list the tactical levels as this

1) Tactic Identification - 'when we do X we seem to be more efficient, therefore we should do X more often'
2) Efficiency Assessment - 'determining which tactic is going to be more efficient in a given situation'
3) Risk Identification - 'being able to identify the risks inherent to utilizing a given tactic'
4) Risk Assessment - 'determining which tactics have the best levels of efficiency compared to risk'

Often times players think they are great tacticians solely because they are good at doing 1. More tactical players realize that even 'bad' tactics can be good sometimes and even 'good' tactics can be bad sometimes. That's what 2 is about. Very few players ever think about Risk, instead they are stuck on efficiency. That's why 3 is so important. Then even of those that understand risk is important they have a tendency to either over value risk or over value efficiency.

[Sorinth]

Focus firing may seem like basic tactics, but I've played for a number of years with a bunch of different people and to this day, the people who consistently focus fire are vastly outnumbered by the people who don't. I think that, more than most choices in combat, is something which is heavily influenced by roleplaying. Someone who roleplays a coward might focus on an immediate threat to themselves, someone who roleplays a protector might abandon a wounded target in favor of something that's attacking an ally, etc.

Attacking the thing right in front of you isn't something I would associate with being a coward. But your right that there's also a lot of roleplay going on in combat, and since in game tactics are often quite divorced from realism. So rather then looking at things like are they focus-firing, it should be do they actually plan ahead and if so do they actually execute the plan as intended.

[da newt]

I have not found many people who function at anything more than a basic tactical level, and most struggle to approach basic. I'd like to find folks who like to try to improve tactically, but have struggled to people who are interested (players and DMs).

[Frogreaver]

I have not found many people who function at anything more than a basic tactical level, and most struggle to approach basic. I'd like to find folks who like to try to improve tactically, but have struggled to people who are interested (players and DMs).

I think part of the problem there is that tactics don't exist without specific table assumptions, monster behavior assumptions, etc. The moment you start talking to strangers those variables change and the results become nearly meaningless to you. Perhaps if some approach to capture such assumptions as parameters in the setup phase was made it would cast a bigger net.

[Danielqueue1]

A DM i am a player for is running 2 games. Same number of players in each, and similar level. We both faced an adult dragon in our games. Ours popped up with little warning, (our wizard woke up something big with blue eyes that sunk into the sand). The DM planned to have it harass us as we worked our way through a dungeon, burrowing through the sand to ambush us. Instead the party backtracked to a room we had already cleared, each took cover behind a different wall, buffed up, then the druid turned the wall the dragon was moving behind to mud while we all had solid cover. At one point the dm started measuring and found out that there was no possible angle he could get the dragon to that would hit more than 1 PC. Later on the DM set us against 3 rooms worth of monsters at once (one sounded the alarm) and between a fighting retreat through areas already cleared and dust mephits blinding the casters, no one was ever really threatened even though the encounter came out to deadly x6. the DM even admitted later that he maximized the health on certain creatures for more interesting combat.

The other party had time to prepare for the dragon, knew what they were going against, weren't surprised and all got hit at once with the same breath weapon. (They had time to get potions of resistance so they were okay) but the DM paused our game to let us know just how much of a difference there was between our two groups and what it does to his encounter planning time.

With a tactically minded group who work together, with a consistent DM, and a world that has enough in it to work with, a group can take on way more than their numbers say. But I feel a group will never get to that point in the kind of games that some play where every fight the enemies only ever attack the nearest target until dead. Or where all fights happen in empty square rooms. The world needs to be interesting for tactics and strategy to flourish.

[RSP]

RP dictates a lot of what my characters do in combat, but even with “untrained” characters, they’ll tend to at least appreciate grabbing cover, if able.

I have noticed newer players tend not to release the benefits of cover, dropping prone when at range, getting out of each other’s way (or not stand in front of their line-of-sight), etc. I think that may be just because it takes some getting used to applying the terrain on the battle map to your character, rather than a basic “me and my target approach.”

In what I’ve seen, less focus fire and more “each PC take an enemy” approach.

As a DM, NPCs tactics are based on RP (their training, motivation).

[Sorinth]

Out of curiosity, for the players who focus fire all the time, does the DM also focus fire on the PCs?

Maybe it's just me but it doesn't sound fun as a player if the DM consistently has all monsters (Semi-Intelligent?) target a single PC every combat because that's the optimal strategy it. And if the players are using rule knowledge to play super tactically but the DM isn't then what's the point?

[Frogreaver]

Out of curiosity, for the players who focus fire all the time, does the DM also focus fire on the PCs?

Maybe it's just me but it doesn't sound fun as a player if the DM consistently has all monsters (Semi-Intelligent?) target a single PC every combat because that's the optimal strategy it. And if the players are using rule knowledge to play super tactically but the DM isn't then what's the point?

Very good question.

The way I see it: If the enemies always try to focus fire you, there at least needs to be some thought from the players between focus fire back or move and engage in such a way that team NPC focus firing team PC is no longer the clear best tactic. Which when done also tends to put team PC in a position where their ability to focus fire is minimized.

[Pex]

Out of curiosity, for the players who focus fire all the time, does the DM also focus fire on the PCs?

Maybe it's just me but it doesn't sound fun as a player if the DM consistently has all monsters (Semi-Intelligent?) target a single PC every combat because that's the optimal strategy it. And if the players are using rule knowledge to play super tactically but the DM isn't then what's the point?

Focus fire on a PC is fine as long as it's not the same PC every combat, makes subjective sense based on the context of the combat, and probably for the best not every combat. NPCs do not follow the same rules as PCs. It goes both ways, including combat tactics. A player may volunteer for the position as that's his build precisely for that tactic. He wants the enemy to attack him as much as possible.

[Zuras]

Out of curiosity, for the players who focus fire all the time, does the DM also focus fire on the PCs?

Maybe it's just me but it doesn't sound fun as a player if the DM consistently has all monsters (Semi-Intelligent?) target a single PC every combat because that's the optimal strategy it. And if the players are using rule knowledge to play super tactically but the DM isn't then what's the point?

As a DM I usually play the monsters either dumb or arrogant initially (Fire Giants will be legitimately surprised when a human survives a hit with a rock, for instance). After round 3 of combat they usually start focusing on whoever does the most damage, but otherwise they attack who they can reach. Militarily organized enemies and those with prior experience of the party being the exception.

The most common reason a PC gets ganged up on to a not-fun degree is usually because they failed a save to something and were knocked prone or got restrained. Not particularly fun, but what the enemy would do.

My default is generally that monsters focus fire, but not to an excessive degree. For example, a group of 9 wolves might position for multiple 3 on 1 matchups, rather than trying to swarm one PC 9 to one. Basically once they think the odds are significantly in their favor in a matchup they move to the next available enemy. Wolves might want 3:1 odds, while a Fire Giant is happy with 1:2 odds.

[Sorinth]

Focus fire on a PC is fine as long as it's not the same PC every combat, makes subjective sense based on the context of the combat, and probably for the best not every combat. NPCs do not follow the same rules as PCs. It goes both ways, including combat tactics. A player may volunteer for the position as that's his build precisely for that tactic. He wants the enemy to attack him as much as possible.


As a DM I usually play the monsters either dumb or arrogant initially (Fire Giants will be legitimately surprised when a human survives a hit with a rock, for instance). After round 3 of combat they usually start focusing on whoever does the most damage, but otherwise they attack who they can reach. Militarily organized enemies and those with prior experience of the party being the exception.

The most common reason a PC gets ganged up on to a not-fun degree is usually because they failed a save to something and were knocked prone or got restrained. Not particularly fun, but what the enemy would do.

My default is generally that monsters focus fire, but not to an excessive degree. For example, a group of 9 wolves might position for multiple 3 on 1 matchups, rather than trying to swarm one PC 9 to one. Basically once they think the odds are significantly in their favor in a matchup they move to the next available enemy. Wolves might want 3:1 odds, while a Fire Giant is happy with 1:2 odds.

If it's standard procedure for the PCs to say focus fire on the spellcaster then why shouldn't any semi-intelligent enemy do the same thing and always focus fire on the PC spellcasters?

If combat is being treated as a tactics heavy mini-game unto itself, doesn't it just seem strange that one side is focused on "winning" and the other side isn't.

[Valorant]

Out of curiosity, for the players who focus fire all the time, does the DM also focus fire on the PCs?

Maybe it's just me but it doesn't sound fun as a player if the DM consistently has all monsters (Semi-Intelligent?) target a single PC every combat because that's the optimal strategy it. And if the players are using rule knowledge to play super tactically but the DM isn't then what's the point?



Because it's not DM Vs players game... Why would DM do that? To destroy players fun from playing smart? He has some complex to heal that players don't die in his campaign? He needs to prove something?

Seriously why would DM tryhard Vs his players? Unless whole table loves hardcore challenging combat campaign and agree to play as such then for me it's some unhealthy DM Vs players mind set.

When I DM I never use meta tactics Vs players. It would kill the game. If they play smart and destroy stuff and have fun doing it then great, my job is done. I am not there to " ow, just wait you little players, next encounter I will use same tactics to destroy you ehehehe. Nobody bests me!" kind of stuff...

There is nothing worse than arm race at table.

[Sorinth]

Because it's not DM Vs players game... Why would DM do that? To destroy players fun from playing smart? He has some complex to heal that players don't die in his campaign? He needs to prove something?

Seriously why would DM tryhard Vs his players? Unless whole table loves hardcore challenging combat campaign and agree to play as such then for me it's some unhealthy DM Vs players mind set.

When I DM I never use meta tactics Vs players. It would kill the game. If they play smart and destroy stuff and have fun doing it then great, my job is done. I am not there to " ow, just wait you little players, next encounter I will use same tactics to destroy you ehehehe. Nobody bests me!" kind of stuff...

There is nothing worse than arm race at table.

Shouldn't that go both ways, shouldn't the players also avoid meta tactics then?

[Guy Lombard-O]

What level of combat tactics do you see your players employ, and what do you consider the dividing line between basic tactics, tactical proficiency and advanced tactics?

Those are just my definitions, but especially for basic tactics, what is the minimum you need to see as a DM to keep from rolling your eyes, and what level of coordination makes you think the PCs are punching above their weight class?

I don't DM, so I can only speak from my experiences as a player. But I'd say that true tactical play is pretty rare. In fact, it's probably much rarer than many players seem to think.

I play with a group which recently lost our DM, so we shopped out a new one on Roll20. When we were arranging a new game with this DM, one of my group stated that "we're a pretty good group of tactical players". And I silently rolled my eyes. Because...no. We're not.

Now, I love these guys, and I enjoy playing with them. But good tactical players they are not. One of them is still struggling with basic action economy and the difference between ability checks and saving throws ("I'm going to hold an attack with my sword ready, in case he comes closer." "Uhh, that spell you cast used your action, so you can't do that."). The other one is probably proficient and closing on advanced tactics in some respects. But still, we never really coordinate our abilities or attacks tactically, that I've noticed. I can't even get him to see the value of taking Repelling Blast on his warlock, so we can do combos with my Web spells.

Since we don't do anything tactically complicated, and since I'm part of that group, I'd say that I and my buds are, as a party, stuck somewhere between basic and proficient. We might optimize our PCs, and we can often individually pick the best spell or approach for the encounter. But we're not organized or advanced enough to integrate our attacks and abilities into something synergistically greater than the sum or our individual abilities.

The other groups I've played with have rarely done any better.

[Valorant]

Shouldn't that go both ways, shouldn't the players also avoid meta tactics then?

Why? They are the heroes and if they play smart and combo with each other then I will reward them for that. Like it's that simple in every game humanity ever created: play better and smarter = win easier and faster.

Them thinking of more and more creative ways or using mechanics is fun. They grow up as players. I reward them for super smart or crazy feats of system knowledge because why shouldn't I? Game is their play ground, let them have fun once per 2 weeks.

Why as DM I would want to take that away from my players? I much prefer them clapping at each other after encounter, screaming "yes, omg that combo was good!" And bragging for next few minutes how they outsmart enemies then me trying to make sure they will get frustrating encounters. I am there to make sure they have great time, not to beat them or anything like that.

[Zuras]

Shouldn't that go both ways, shouldn't the players also avoid meta tactics then?

The players are supposed to always play smart, since they have to win or at least survive 100% of the time.

If the DM plays every combat like a tactical mastermind, the players never get a sense that some monsters are smarter than others, and it ends up feeling more like a minis skirmish game than most people want.

[Easy e]

It really does feel like some players should play more Wargames and less RPG games.

Wargames are by default a co-operative* yet Versus experience, while RPGs are a cooperative TEAM experience.

* Co-operative in that both players still agree to certain conventions. No taking a tactical nuke against a stone age cave tribe.

[Sorinth]

Why? They are the heroes and if they play smart and combo with each other then I will reward them for that. Like it's that simple in every game humanity ever created: play better and smarter = win easier and faster.

Them thinking of more and more creative ways or using mechanics is fun. They grow up as players. I reward them for super smart or crazy feats of system knowledge because why shouldn't I? Game is their play ground, let them have fun once per 2 weeks.

Why as DM I would want to take that away from my players? I much prefer them clapping at each other after encounter, screaming "yes, omg that combo was good!" And bragging for next few minutes how they outsmart enemies then me trying to make sure they will get frustrating encounters. I am there to make sure they have great time, not to beat them or anything like that.

Well you aren't taking anything away, they are still rewarded for playing tactically. If someone is tactically inclined wouldn't they find more enjoyment when the enemy is also making the smart choices? Have you ever played a board game on your phone against an AI and won because the AI makes a boneheaded decision(s)? Because that often takes the fun out of it, yeah I win but only because the AI is bad and not because I actually played well/smart.

Is the DM intentionally making poor tactical decisions when the players aren't much different then the DM fudging die rolls?


The players are supposed to always play smart, since they have to win or at least survive 100% of the time.

If the DM plays every combat like a tactical mastermind, the players never get a sense that some monsters are smarter than others, and it ends up feeling more like a minis skirmish game than most people want.

If a player is a tactical mastermind but is playing an Int 8 character play, why should that character act like a tactical genius?

Having combat being more like minis skirmish is exactly the problem, you are suggesting the players should play combat as if it was a game of minis, but that the DM shouldn't. There's a disconnect there, both sides should be playing the same way, no?

[Frogreaver]

Well you aren't taking anything away, they are still rewarded for playing tactically. If someone is tactically inclined wouldn't they find more enjoyment when the enemy is also making the smart choices? Have you ever played a board game on your phone against an AI and won because the AI makes a boneheaded decision(s)? Because that often takes the fun out of it, yeah I win but only because the AI is bad and not because I actually played well/smart.

Is the DM intentionally making poor tactical decisions when the players aren't much different then the DM fudging die rolls?



If a player is a tactical mastermind but is playing an Int 8 character play, why should that character act like a tactical genius?

Having combat being more like minis skirmish is exactly the problem, you are suggesting the players should play combat as if it was a game of minis, but that the DM shouldn't. There's a disconnect there, both sides should be playing the same way, no?

I agree with the thrust of your point. But not everything you say here.

I think it’s fine for team NPC to play ‘realistically’ while team PC plays tactically. My issue is more that such playstyles don’t highlight PCs as smart and tactical but enemies as stupid and untactical. Which is fine if that’s what a group wants, but abusing tactically dumb enemies isn’t really what I think of when somethings described as strong tactical play.

[Zuras]

I agree with the thrust of your point. But not everything you say here.

I think it’s fine for team NPC to play ‘realistically’ while team PC plays tactically. My issue is more that such playstyles don’t highlight PCs as smart and tactical but enemies as stupid and untactical. Which is fine if that’s what a group wants, but abusing tactically dumb enemies isn’t really what I think of when somethings described as strong tactical play.

It ends up that way (tactical players abusing dumb monsters) no matter what, even the DM wants to be more tactical. I love tactical play, but only about 1/3 of my fights get particularly tactical. Most DMs don’t have the time to figure out decent tactics for smart spellcasting enemies every week, at least I don’t. My plans actually work about half the time, so that’s about 1 in 6 encounters that ended up tactical and challenging.

That’s not a stupendous proportion, but most of my players “remember that time when we…” moments either come from either those combats or the ones where someone did something obviously stupid or improbably spectacular.

[DevilMcam]

I consider myself somewhat tactically savy player with fairly good gaming knowledge and am known by some of my dm as the guy that will turn the monsteradvantage against himself if given the slightest opportunity.

For me basic tactics are :
- focus fire to reduce enemy threat level faster
- dont heal your friends in combat unless it's healing word.
- don't use all your resources in one go

more proficient tactics are :
- be able to asses where are the threats and what is not one
- be able to asses what your are a threat to and what you are not a threat to
- know that hit points and hit dices are as valuable a ressource than those 3rd level slots of fireball
- help your teammates make use of teir abilities

Advanced tactics are:
- know that is most of the time worth to do less right now inorder to do more later. If you don't kill an ennemy this turn, that extra d8 of damage willlikely not matter in the end.
- Pro tip for martials: swinging your longsord is like casting a cantrip. you don't really want to do that unless there is nothing to do.
- Setup situation in order to make it impossible for the ennemies to have a good and a bad choice. all choices must be bad choices.
- know your place and your role in the party. Do what you are good at and leave the rest for others

[Kvess]

It's interesting to see complaints about DMs not playing tactically. It's easy to forget that DMs have many inherent tactical advantages that players don't have. As a DM:


I control and coordinate an entire side seamlessly, while it takes effort for players to actively coordinate.
I know the strengths, weaknesses and loadouts of each of the player characters. Players are discouraged from reading enemy statblocks.
I can shape the encounters and terrain however I want. Players need to improvise with what they find.


This is balanced by the fact that players and DMs have different goals and incentives:

Players need to defeat enemies to advance the story.
Even when you embrace the concept of failing forward, if the DM keeps killing their player characters that makes advancing the story difficult.


Recently my players were taking on an enemy party of Red Wizards, and I threw every nasty tactic I could think of against them. The Wizards hid behind illusions while the party expended their most powerful abilities on a Water Elemental and bog-standard zombies disguised as wizards with Magic Mouth and Seeming. I used area of effect spells, broke line of sight, split the party... and even though I wasn't using optimal spells the players didn't stand a chance.

While everything I did in that encounter was by the book, I wouldn't have gone that extreme on every fight. If every fight was like that, I don't think I'd have a table. Instead, I tend to reserve that level of tactical play for enemies that players have ample warning about, or low-CR enemies that the players might otherwise be bored by.

I suspect that when players complain about a DM not playing tactically, they really mean that the fights are getting boring. Nobody wants to lose characters in every fight, but seeing enemies actually move around and interact with the terrain tends to be more interesting than standing in place trading punches.

[Zuras]

It's interesting to see complaints about DMs not playing tactically. It's easy to forget that DMs have many inherent tactical advantages that players don't have. As a DM:


I control and coordinate an entire side seamlessly, while it takes effort for players to actively coordinate.
I know the strengths, weaknesses and loadouts of each of the player characters. Players are discouraged from reading enemy statblocks.
I can shape the encounters and terrain however I want. Players need to improvise with what they find.


This is balanced by the fact that players and DMs have different goals and incentives:

Players need to defeat enemies to advance the story.
Even when you embrace the concept of failing forward, if the DM keeps killing their player characters that makes advancing the story difficult.


Recently my players were taking on an enemy party of Red Wizards, and I threw every nasty tactic I could think of against them. The Wizards hid behind illusions while the party expended their most powerful abilities on a Water Elemental and bog-standard zombies disguised as wizards with Magic Mouth and Seeming. I used area of effect spells, broke line of sight, split the party... and even though I wasn't using optimal spells the players didn't stand a chance.

While everything I did in that encounter was by the book, I wouldn't have gone that extreme on every fight. If every fight was like that, I don't think I'd have a table. Instead, I tend to reserve that level of tactical play for enemies that players have ample warning about, or low-CR enemies that the players might otherwise be bored by.

I suspect that when players complain about a DM not playing tactically, they really mean that the fights are getting boring. Nobody wants to lose characters in every fight, but seeing enemies actually move around and interact with the terrain tends to be more interesting than standing in place trading punches.


DM use of illusions is also a tricky area to get right. Since the DM is the sole source of all the tactical data the players get, it’s often difficult for players to figure out what’s going on without the DM either giving the deception away immediately or being deliberately obtuse in response to player questions.

[Sorinth]

I agree with the thrust of your point. But not everything you say here.

I think it’s fine for team NPC to play ‘realistically’ while team PC plays tactically. My issue is more that such playstyles don’t highlight PCs as smart and tactical but enemies as stupid and untactical. Which is fine if that’s what a group wants, but abusing tactically dumb enemies isn’t really what I think of when somethings described as strong tactical play.

Obviously people should play the way they enjoy it.

It's just seems strange to me that players who like and play the game tactically, would want the DM to not also be playing tactically. Isn't a huge part of the fun for a player that likes the tactical aspects of the game the challenge involved?

Yes the DM can increase the number/quality of enemies, and I think that's how you end up in situations where someone says the party regularly handles half a dozen Deadly+ encounters per rest because of how good they are at tactics. It's not good tactics it's as you say abusing dumb enemies. I would expect players that actually liked the tactical aspect to enjoy combat more if they faced weaker CR enemies who actually played smart then high CR dumb enemies. But that might just be me.

[Sorinth]

I suspect that when players complain about a DM not playing tactically, they really mean that the fights are getting boring. Nobody wants to lose characters in every fight, but seeing enemies actually move around and interact with the terrain tends to be more interesting than standing in place trading punches.

For the record I'm not complaining about DMs not playing tactically, I'm just saying the DM and players should for the most part play the same way. My preference is that both DM and players play it how the PC/NPC would play it, which doesn't mean not playing tactically but means minimizing "meta" tactics.

[KorvinStarmast]

Out of curiosity, for the players who focus fire all the time, does the DM also focus fire on the PCs? Sometimes, the enemy notices a dangerous spell caster and goes all in on them. Other times, they don't. Depends on the enemy.


Shouldn't that go both ways, shouldn't the players also avoid meta tactics then? Face palm.

The whole point of this thread is the players playing with levels of tactical acumen.

While I am tempted to ask you what you mean by 'meta tactics' I suspect that I can guess.

Let's wind this back to the basics of this thread. The way this discussion has gone, you seem to not see what most of us are seeing. Most players suck at tactics, so any tactical innovation that they do apply is a good thing.
Yet there stands Sorinth, the DM, wagging a finger at the players
"no, you can't to that, it's meta gaming to use that tactic"

That the impression of your approach which that post left me with.

Say it ain't so, Joe. :smallfrown:


I'm just saying the DM and players should for the most part play the same way.
That is a 'should' that has no substantiation. What's behind your assertion, eh? Given that the DM has massively more information about the battlefield, hidden and unhidden, than the players do I find that position to be a poor one.

[Sorinth]

Sometimes, the enemy notices a dangerous spell caster and goes all in on them. Other times, they don't. Depends on the enemy.

Face palm.

The whole point of this thread is the players playing with levels of tactical acumen.

While I am tempted to ask you what you mean by 'meta tactics' I suspect that I can guess.

Let's wind this back to the basics of this thread. The way this discussion has gone, you seem to not see what most of us are seeing. Most players suck at tactics, so any tactical innovation that they do apply is a good thing.
Yet there stands Sorinth, the DM, wagging a finger at the players
"no, you can't to that, it's meta gaming to use that tactic"

That the impression of your approach which that post left me with.

Say it ain't so, Joe. :smallfrown:

As I said in other posts people should play the way they want, I'm not wagging my finger at anyone. At best I'm rolling my eyes at people who say they play in strong tactical games but that game involves the DM is puffing them up by intentionally handling the monsters badly.

And I wasn't the one who coined the term meta tactics, I would imagine what it entails is going to be a little different for everyone.

[KorvinStarmast]

And I wasn't the one who coined the term meta tactics, I would imagine what it entails is going to be a little different for everyone. OK. You used that term in your post so I was guessing that you had something in mind. But I do agree that each of us might have a different idea of what that might be.

[RSP]

Most players suck at tactics, so any tactical innovation that they do apply is a good thing.

I’m fine with characters acting tactically, but I dislike players using out of character knowledge in combat. So I’d disagree that “any tactical innovation” is a good thing.

First off, though, it’s probably worth clarifying whether people are referring to Players working together with Player knowledge to define tactics; or whether they mean characters working together with character knowledge to define tactics. Having read through most of the thread, I’m not sure everyone is noting the difference.

Now, I’d expect a DM to likewise have the NPCs stick to their in-game knowledge as well. Though I guess if both DM and Players are fine with it just being DM vs Players in combat (as opposed to PCs vs NPCs), that could work, though I don’t know where the DM draws the line with their game power, in that case.

For me, a DM RPing an encounter, and the Players RPing their respective PCs, is what I enjoy, but obviously, to each their own.

[strangebloke]

I’m fine with characters acting tactically, but I dislike players using out of character knowledge in combat. So I’d disagree that “any tactical innovation” is a good thing.

First off, though, it’s probably worth clarifying whether people are referring to Players working together with Player knowledge to define tactics; or whether they mean characters working together with character knowledge to define tactics. Having read through most of the thread, I’m not sure everyone is noting the difference.

Now, I’d expect a DM to likewise have the NPCs stick to their in-game knowledge as well. Though I guess if both DM and Players are fine with it just being DM vs Players in combat (as opposed to PCs vs NPCs), that could work, though I don’t know where the DM draws the line with their game power, in that case.

For me, a DM RPing an encounter, and the Players RPing their respective PCs, is what I enjoy, but obviously, to each their own.

I find this definition of "roleplay" to be altogether too restrictive. Sometimes roleplay can be fun in combat, like when a player is fighting someone/something they hate and they go mega hard, but I would never say "your character is too stupid to dodge in place here." Like come on, that's just mean.

If it works at your table, good for you but man.

[Christew]

I find this definition of "roleplay" to be altogether too restrictive. Sometimes roleplay can be fun in combat, like when a player is fighting someone/something they hate and they go mega hard, but I would never say "your character is too stupid to dodge in place here." Like come on, that's just mean.

If it works at your table, good for you but man.
I'm struggling to find the "definition" offered that got you to "your character is too stupid to dodge."

[strangebloke]

I'm struggling to find the "definition" offered that got you to "your character is too stupid to dodge."

Maybe he wouldn't take it that far, but this logic can justify that kind of reasoning. "Oh your stupid fighter has 6 int, they wouldn't think to do that." It's very annoying. Player/Character knowledge separation plays into this as well. I have to roll religion to know what a fricking vampire is? These kinds of restrictions break up the flow of the game for me, I don't enjoy them. Let players assume they know what they know, and then change things up when they get cocky so that they stay on their toes.

[Kvess]

DM use of illusions is also a tricky area to get right. Since the DM is the sole source of all the tactical data the players get, it’s often difficult for players to figure out what’s going on without the DM either giving the deception away immediately or being deliberately obtuse in response to player questions.

Sneaking in hints to make it REALLY obvious in retrospect was part of the fun! 1) They knew one of the wizards was an illusionist and another was a Necromancer. 2) I had the Wizard-disguised zombies shuffle towards the party without casting spells. 3) They deliver canned threats through magic mouth while staring blankly into space.

It’s really hard to read hints when you think you’re a round away from being polymorphed into a newt. One of the more experienced players put the pieces together when I openly rolled Constitution saving throws for Undead Fortitude.

[RSP]

Maybe he wouldn't take it that far, but this logic can justify that kind of reasoning. "Oh your stupid fighter has 6 AC, they wouldn't think to do that." It's very annoying. Player/Character knowledge separation plays into this as well. I have to roll religion to know what a fricking vampire is? These kinds of restrictions break up the flow of the game for me, I don't enjoy them. Let players assume they know what they know, and then change things up when they get cocky so that they stay on their toes.

I’m not sure what got you to your conclusion: why do you assume RPing equals "Oh your stupid fighter has 6 AC, they wouldn't think to do that?”

I mean, based off of this, you’re assuming I’d have a fighter with a 3 or 4 in Dex (to get the 6 AC, no armor worn so 10 minus Dex mod of -4), as well as dumping Int (for whatever score you ascribe to being “stupid”). Assuming such awful stats for my character isn’t just wrong (current PC is both graceful and intelligent), it’s downright rude.

Other than that, it seems you’re arguing for “just let everyone metagame”, which is, at least as I see it, the opposite of role-playing. To each their own, but why play a role-playing game, if you don’t want to role play?

Also, you sound like someone who likes to study the adventure module before playing it so you can use that “player knowledge” with your character to “win” the game, and impress everyone with how you knew everything that was needed, whenever it was needed. Your argument seems to be: if the DM doesn’t change the game info, it’s not the players fault for using what they know. (This puts a ridiculous bit of more work on the already over-worked DM, btw.)

Again, if that’s what you enjoy, fair enough; it’s certainly not what I’d care for though.

[Zuras]

Sneaking in hints to make it REALLY obvious in retrospect was part of the fun! 1) They knew one of the wizards was an illusionist and another was a Necromancer. 2) I had the Wizard-disguised zombies shuffle towards the party without casting spells. 3) They deliver canned threats through magic mouth while staring blankly into space.

It’s really hard to read hints when you think you’re a round away from being polymorphed into a newt. One of the more experienced players put the pieces together when I openly rolled Constitution saving throws for Undead Fortitude.

My experience with DMs using illusions has been very mixed. There isn’t really a clear explanation in the rules about what feedback spellcasters get when their spells fizzle due to invalid targets, so I have had DMs string along my casters with projected images and such to an annoying degree.

One experience was so bad it actually helped me codify one of my personal DMing rules, which is “never use cheesy rules interpretations against the players unless they’ve already used it themselves.”

[Frogreaver]

I’m fine with characters acting tactically, but I dislike players using out of character knowledge in combat. So I’d disagree that “any tactical innovation” is a good thing.

First off, though, it’s probably worth clarifying whether people are referring to Players working together with Player knowledge to define tactics; or whether they mean characters working together with character knowledge to define tactics. Having read through most of the thread, I’m not sure everyone is noting the difference.

Now, I’d expect a DM to likewise have the NPCs stick to their in-game knowledge as well. Though I guess if both DM and Players are fine with it just being DM vs Players in combat (as opposed to PCs vs NPCs), that could work, though I don’t know where the DM draws the line with their game power, in that case.

For me, a DM RPing an encounter, and the Players RPing their respective PCs, is what I enjoy, but obviously, to each their own.

I think there's a fine line here. Obviously tactical combat in a turn based game is going to rely to some degree on leveraging your turns, your turn order in the initiative list, etc. For example, many combos require leveraging that turn order. First do X then do Y. All of that is metagame info. It's not actually present in the fictional world. So how exactly do you want to see that needle threaded?

[Kvess]

YMMV. As I said, there are many asymmetries between players and the DM. I am rooting for my players and I typically don’t use every unfair advantage at my disposal, but I feel like a cabal of wizards (who should be smarter than me) should have a trick or two up their sleeves.

And sometimes showing players that a tactic is possible is what gives them permission to experiment. I think it made our game better in the long run.

[RSP]

I think there's a fine line here. Obviously tactical combat in a turn based game is going to rely to some degree on leveraging your turns, your turn order in the initiative list, etc. For example, many combos require leveraging that turn order. First do X then do Y. All of that is metagame info. It's not actually present in the fictional world. So how exactly do you want to see that needle threaded?

Can you give an example of the type of “combo” you’re referring to?

Do you mean two characters working on something in-game? Two Players working on something with OOC knowledge? One character doing something that has a requirement (like Shield Master Shove using JC’s logic)?

[Zuras]

YMMV. As I said, there are many asymmetries between players and the DM. I am rooting for my players and I typically don’t use every unfair advantage at my disposal, but I feel like a cabal of wizards (who should be smarter than me) should have a trick or two up their sleeves.

And sometimes showing players that a tactic is possible is what gives them permission to experiment. I think it made our game better in the long run.


I agree that sometimes it’s fun and instructive to demonstrate tactics to your players, or show that the bad guys can be clever too. It’s all about the execution in those cases—if your players felt you played fair, then everything’s fine. It’s just been a pain point for me, especially in pick-up/rotating DM games.

[Frogreaver]

Can you give an example of the type of “combo” you’re referring to?

Do you mean two characters working on something in-game? Two Players working on something with OOC knowledge? One character doing something that has a requirement (like Shield Master Shove using JC’s logic)?

Let's start simpler. I'm 60ft away from an enemy. Instead of trying to get there as fast as I can. I get there almost as fast as I can and stop 35 ft away from the enemy instead of 30, because I know they are a melee enemy with a 30ft max movement speed and so that enemy can't move and attack me next turn. Isn't everything about that interaction based on metagame knowledge about turns and movement distances within the turn and actions within the turn, etc.

Solid Tactic about stopping just shy of his movement distance. Fairly rudimentary and common as well, but so detached from the fiction that the only way you arrive at this tactic is out of character knowledge about turn structures.

[strangebloke]

I’m not sure what got you to your conclusion: why do you assume RPing equals "Oh your stupid fighter has 6 AC, they wouldn't think to do that?”

I mean, based off of this, you’re assuming I’d have a fighter with a 3 or 4 in Dex (to get the 6 AC, no armor worn so 10 minus Dex mod of -4), as well as dumping Int (for whatever score you ascribe to being “stupid”). Assuming such awful stats for my character isn’t just wrong (current PC is both graceful and intelligent), it’s downright rude.

Other than that, it seems you’re arguing for “just let everyone metagame”, which is, at least as I see it, the opposite of role-playing. To each their own, but why play a role-playing game, if you don’t want to role play?

Also, you sound like someone who likes to study the adventure module before playing it so you can use that “player knowledge” with your character to “win” the game, and impress everyone with how you knew everything that was needed, whenever it was needed. Your argument seems to be: if the DM doesn’t change the game info, it’s not the players fault for using what they know. (This puts a ridiculous bit of more work on the already over-worked DM, btw.)

Again, if that’s what you enjoy, fair enough; it’s certainly not what I’d care for though.

First of all I meant to say 6 intelligence. Typing on the phone ruins a man.

Secondly, yeah metagaming is fine. If I (the player) know what vampires are and i live in a world where they're not real and were only made up in the last few centuries, wouldn't a man who lives in a world where vampires are real know even more? Wouldn't my character, who frequents taverns and travels and fights for a living hear tell of the fearsome vampyr and all the evils they can do?

This "roll to see if you know what you know" thing is pointless. It's not role-playing, not really. It's just arbitrarily enforced character ignorance. It's deciding what a character knows based on randomness or fiat rather than having the player work out for himself what might be reasonable for his guy to know. It's annoying and tyrannical. "Sorry Jim, you may be the hero of seven kingdoms and a legendary warrior, but you rolled poorly on the knowledge check so you don't get to know that the dragon that breathes lightning is in fact resistant to lightning."

As for mechanics, my character may not know what legendary actions are or that a dragon has them but they know dragons are real big and real strong and you have to be careful around them. My character may not know that Johnny is on his last death save but he knows how long it takes for a guy to bleed out and he doesn't want his friend to die. My character may not know that the DM just rolled a 16 but he does know that the enemy swordsman's blow isn't gonna get blocked unless he casts shield.

As a DM, my baseline assumption is that characters know more or less everything their players know because trying to second guess your players at every turn is unproductive. "Bob, would JIM know that counter spell has a range of sixty feet???" Who cares? Just play the game, let players be tactical if they want to be, it's not ruining anyone's fun.

As for adventure modules: I don't run them. If I did, I'd probably not want someone reading ahead, but this is on an entirely different level from just "knowing the monsters statblock." Specific campaign knowledge is different from general systems knowledge.

[Frogreaver]

This "roll to see if you know what you know" thing is pointless. It's not role-playing, not really. It's just arbitrarily enforced character ignorance. It's deciding what a character knows based on randomness or fiat rather than having the player work out for himself what might be reasonable for his guy to know. It's annoying and tyrannical. "Sorry Jim, you may be the hero of seven kingdoms and a legendary warrior, but you rolled poorly on the knowledge check so you don't get to know that the dragon that breathes lightning is in fact resistant to lightning."

Letting the player decide via Fiat as you prescribe above doesn't seem particularly better.

Character Context with dice seem to be a solid way to establish such facts about the character. That some DM's aren't very good at appropriately weighting your background info into the DC/Modifier (or providing auto-success if warranted) - doesn't mean we should fall back to the player decides. I mean, what's next, the player just decides all their starting stats and their starting level? :smallwink:

[RSP]

Let's start simpler. I'm 60ft away from an enemy. Instead of trying to get there as fast as I can. I get there almost as fast as I can and stop 35 ft away from the enemy instead of 30, because I know they are a melee enemy with a 30ft max movement speed and so that enemy can't move and attack me next turn. Isn't everything about that interaction based on metagame knowledge about turns and movement distances within the turn and actions within the turn, etc.

For me personally, this would depend.

As you’re presenting it: yes, it’s Player knowledge and not Character knowledge. That is something I prefer to not do (not judging, just stating my preference), as I’ve stated, I prefer to RP.

However, this could similarly be done with character knowledge. For instance, the idea for the character could just be “I know about how far I need to be to engage and attack in melee, so I’m going to stay out of that range, and take up a defensive stance (Dodge Action), while sizing up this opponent.”

I’m in no way saying this all needs to be expressed this way during a turn; I’m fine giving the benefit of the doubt to Players (and DMs) with just declaring the actions.

Now if Player A took their turn to do the above, and then Player B points out “those are Orcs, they can Dash as a BA. You should just stay back.” That’s something I’d be annoyed with (unless Player A’s character was somehow familiar enough with Orcs that they would know that info, even though Player A was unaware of it; such as a new player with a Ranger who’s favorite enemy is Orcs)..

Most Players have been around D&D enough to have picked up at least some info, like using fire or acid to stop a troll from regenerating. Knowing all that stuff is fine and normal; but using it when the characters don’t know it is, in my opinion, making the game worse. That is, the DM puts the time and effort forth to prep encounters appropriate to the characters; if players are using out of game info to trivialize those encounters, what’s the point?

As a DM, I don’t particularly care if a Player is familiar with a campaign I’m running; but if they start using their knowledge of it to trivialize the encounters, they’re ruining it for the other players and, frankly, wasting my time.

There’s plenty of space, of course, between your example and doing that, but the principe holds: the encounters are designed to the character’s abilities and I appreciate that.

At least that’s my take on it. Again, if a table does DM vs Players (as opposed to NPCs vs PCs), and it works, cool. It’s just not my cup of tea (and my moneys on the DM).


If I (the player) know what vampires are and i live in a world where they're not real and were only made up in the last few centuries, wouldn't a man who lives in a world where vampires are real know even more?

No, this doesn’t actually make sense, logically. I live in a world with at least thousands of different creatures that I don’t know anything about. The simple fact that I exist, and they exist, does not give me knowledge on them in anyway.

Moreover, you and I have been exposed to vampires in multiple ways (different movies, tv shows, books, different editions of D&D possibly). Nothing says the farmer living in the in-game world has ever had any exposure to them, much less to that extent.

Further, I’m pretty sure every one of those different instances of learning about vampires had different (sometimes contradictory) information about them (compare Lestat to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, to Lost Boys, to Twilight, to 3E D&D). Assuming that in-game farmer knows not just ALL of that and MORE (as you claim they should), but that they also should know what’s relevant to 5E D&D vampires, without ever having seen a vampire or been exposed to the movies, books, rulesets, etc., just doesn’t make sense.

Basically, this argument is: every creature in-game is aware of every other creature in-game, because they all exist. It’s a flawed argument to say the least.



Wouldn't my character, who frequents taverns and travels and fights for a living hear tell of the fearsome vampyr and all the evils they can do?

Well now this is interesting, as you seem to be switching to a RP reason as to why the character should know as opposed to the metagame reason.

Is your character a traveling fighter, who frequents taverns seeking tales of monsters? Was this part of their background? When back at town, do you make a point of your character going to the local tavern, and questioning travelers and entertainers on new stories? If so, then roll a d20 and we’ll see what they picked up, if anything, about this specific type of creature that they’re currently facing.



This "roll to see if you know what you know" thing is pointless.

I mean, why is it any different than “roll to see if you hit?”

You’re essentially arguing for: “Hey DM, no need for me to roll a d20 for Amazing Fighting Monster Slayer’s attack; as you can see by my character’s name, they are an Amazing Fighting Monster Slayer, and, therefore, the monster is slayed.”

The entire point of the d20 roll is to get a determination of success or failure by a character in the game, when the result of whatever is occurring is uncertain.

You’re arguing that the DM no longer determines if there’s uncertainty, the Player just determines an auto-success.

[Zuras]

If you guys want to have an in depth discussion as to the amount of metagaming involved in advanced player tactics, could you move it to a new thread? I fear otherwise it’s going to derail the discussion.

In terms of tactical sophistication, I hope we can agree that complex, creature specific tactics like Banishing your own teammates to break a vampire’s Charm on them fall into the Advanced tier, right?

[elyktsorb]

In a lot of games I play I actually see plenty of sub-optimal choices made during combat due to the actual character of the characters. So that's interesting.

[Frogreaver]

If you guys want to have an in depth discussion as to the amount of metagaming involved in advanced player tactics, could you move it to a new thread? I fear otherwise it’s going to derail the discussion.

In terms of tactical sophistication, I hope we can agree that complex, creature specific tactics like Banishing your own teammates to break a vampire’s Charm on them fall into the Advanced tier, right?

So I hate to say this but something like that requires alot of metagame knowledge about how the vampire's Charm works (it's very unlikely that's something the characters know) Heck it's also something very unlikely that many players will know.

So based on that I'd put it this way, presuming a player or character 'knows' such an interaction will break the charm, it's a very rudimentary tactic. For me it would fall in my first level of tactics - identification.

However, if the player/character doesn't know or have good reason to believe it will break the charm and does it anyways, it's a terrible tactical decision. In this situation doing nearly anything else was probably a better tactical decision.

It almost sounds like your 'advanced tactics' is primarily about noting the things advanced players would have knowledge of that newbies wouldn't. But knowledge is just the very first step in strong tactical play.

[RSP]

If you guys want to have an in depth discussion as to the amount of metagaming involved in advanced player tactics, could you move it to a new thread? I fear otherwise it’s going to derail the discussion.


As you had the OP, do you want to clarify as to what your intent was with the post? I mentioned this is a previous post.

“Player’s tactics”, the term used, could be either “character tactics” (because the Player is determining the character tactics), or “Players vs DM tactics.”

I mean, having a copy of the Monster Manual on hand to pull up the stats of whatever you’re currently fighting, so as to know all it’s capabilities and weaknesses, and then sharing those with the other Players, is a tactic that can be used while playing 5e, though it has nothing to do with character tactics (I wouldn’t appreciate this type of tactic, btw).

Was your intent to include this type of meta gaming in your “tactics” question; or was your OP about how PCs interact with their in-game surroundings and character-based knowledge more to what you were looking for? Or perhaps a third item I’m not considering?

[KorvinStarmast]

I’m fine with characters acting tactically, but I dislike players using out of character knowledge in combat.

I find this definition of "roleplay" to be altogether too restrictive. Sometimes roleplay can be fun in combat, like when a player is fighting someone/something they hate and they go mega hard, but I would never say "your character is too stupid to dodge in place here." Like come on, that's just mean. I tend to be on strangebloke's side in this regard.

Obviously tactical combat in a turn based game is going to rely to some degree on leveraging your turns, your turn order in the initiative list, etc. For example, many combos require leveraging that turn order. First do X then do Y. All of that is metagame info. It's not actually present in the fictional world. Bingo, we once again are confronted with the specter of player/character separation. It's a turn based game. (Which is done for playability reasons).

YMMV. As I said, there are many asymmetries between players and the DM. You said it better than I did. :smallsmile:

[Zuras]

So I hate to say this but something like that requires alot of metagame knowledge about how the vampire's Charm works (it's very unlikely that's something the characters know) Heck it's also something very unlikely that many players will know.

So based on that I'd put it this way, presuming a player or character 'knows' such an interaction will break the charm, it's a very rudimentary tactic. For me it would fall in my first level of tactics - identification.

However, if the player/character doesn't know or have good reason to believe it will break the charm and does it anyways, it's a terrible tactical decision. In this situation doing nearly anything else was probably a better tactical decision.

We obviously play at different tables, because I have rarely (maybe never) been at a tier 3 table without a PC with +9 or more to Arcana. Possibly due to one too many DMs saying “a magical effect you have no understanding of kills you, hurr durr.”

In any event, I would definitely consider the multi-step process involved—identifying the threat and devising a countermeasure—to be more than just basic tactics.

I don’t have clear bright-line distinctions between the levels, but on an emotional level, basic tactics is what I expect from other players as part of the basic D&D team concept and social contract. In Tier 1 or early Tier 2 play, I don’t expect new players to know exactly what they’re doing or how to use their class abilities. In Tier 3, sitting around casting cantrips in the final confrontation with the BBEG when you still have multiple high level slots left is being a bad teammate.

It’s not a big issue if it’s your ongoing campaign, since both the DM and other players are aware and have adjusted, but people playing Tier 3 pick-up AL games who haven’t mastered their basic class abilities bug me. As an AL DM I run plenty of modules where I spend more time working on my NPC voices and motivations than tactics, but those aren’t the Tier 3 mods.

[strangebloke]

Letting the player decide via Fiat as you prescribe above doesn't seem particularly better.

Character Context with dice seem to be a solid way to establish such facts about the character. That some DM's aren't very good at appropriately weighting your background info into the DC/Modifier (or providing auto-success if warranted) - doesn't mean we should fall back to the player decides. I mean, what's next, the player just decides all their starting stats and their starting level? :smallwink:
Seems like a lot of work for no purpose. My attitude is more like this: Players can choose to make their OOC knowledge their in-character knowledge, with the caveat that this information is prone to error and might be wrong. If they want accurate information, they need to roll for it. Perhaps because I run a custom setting and storyline, and frequently reskin enemies (this isn't a hobgoblin, its a guard!) I rarely have a problem with players who gloat about knowing some detail about the statblock.

And if they do, hey, fine for them.

The only thing I ban is looking up monster statblocks mid-combat, and that's more just because it slows the game down.


No, this doesn’t actually make sense, logically. I live in a world with at least thousands of different creatures that I don’t know anything about. The simple fact that I exist, and they exist, does not give me knowledge on them in anyway.

Moreover, you and I have been exposed to vampires in multiple ways (different movies, tv shows, books, different editions of D&D possibly). Nothing says the farmer living in the in-game world has ever had any exposure to them, much less to that extent.

Further, I’m pretty sure every one of those different instances of learning about vampires had different (sometimes contradictory) information about them (compare Lestat to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, to Lost Boys, to Twilight, to 3E D&D). Assuming that in-game farmer knows not just ALL of that and MORE (as you claim they should), but that they also should know what’s relevant to 5E D&D vampires, without ever having seen a vampire or been exposed to the movies, books, rulesets, etc., just doesn’t make sense.

Basically, this argument is: every creature in-game is aware of every other creature in-game, because they all exist. It’s a flawed argument to say the least.

Only if your playerhas perfect recollection of every single monster in the MM/VGTM/MTOF, which, uh. Nah man, no way. And I really think people IRL do know about pretty much every animal that could pose a physical threat to them, especially within whatever region they're living/travelling in. When you go to Australia, every local tells you to beware the perfidious Drop Bear. If I wake up on the african savanna and see a pack of wild dogs, I would be pretty aware of what I was dealing with. To drive this point home: I don't think anyone would EVER force a player to make a check to know what a lion is, and yet within a DND setting lions are no more exotic than owlbears.

And even then I rarely run normal monsters, so relying on in-character knowledge can trip you up sometime. Even when I'm obviously running a bearded devil for example, my one player who is also a DM and knows what bearded devils are will still make religion checks to refresh his memory and check if there's anything unusual going on.



Well now this is interesting, as you seem to be switching to a RP reason as to why the character should know as opposed to the metagame reason.

Is your character a traveling fighter, who frequents taverns seeking tales of monsters? Was this part of their background? When back at town, do you make a point of your character going to the local tavern, and questioning travelers and entertainers on new stories? If so, then roll a d20 and we’ll see what they picked up, if anything, about this specific type of creature that they’re currently facing.

...What? Roll for random knowledge every time you hang out in a tavern? Force players to write down all the monsters they hear about in each tavern? What an absurd amount of utterly tedious bookkeeping. I'm going to need a third page to my character sheet to write down "random stuff I heard in a tavern once." I'm going to need to consult that list every time a monster we've not fought before comes at us.

Much easier to just say "The character has picked up some random amount of information over the months on campaign, its not unreasonable for you to have heard about this kind of monster."



I mean, why is it any different than “roll to see if you hit?”

You’re essentially arguing for: “Hey DM, no need for me to roll a d20 for Amazing Fighting Monster Slayer’s attack; as you can see by my character’s name, they are an Amazing Fighting Monster Slayer, and, therefore, the monster is slayed.”

The entire point of the d20 roll is to get a determination of success or failure by a character in the game, when the result of whatever is occurring is uncertain.

You’re arguing that the DM no longer determines if there’s uncertainty, the Player just determines an auto-success.

Wow, lots of strawmen here. I'm not saying people shouldn't roll for anything, I'm just saying that personally I think trying to cut my players' brains in half and force them to not know what they know is tedious and impossible. I am fine rolling for a lot of things, but if a player wants to claim that their character "heard about these Vampires before" then fine, I won't stop them. It's not implausible that they would have. If they want accurate information, from me they need to roll for it, unless this is obviously something they should know (like a cleric asking about the tenets of their own religion.)

You've got a bizarre definition of "roleplay" that seems fixated entirely on systematizing everything about your character. I would argue that being so restrictive about what players are allowed to determine about their own characters is unhelpful for purposes of roleplay.

[Xervous]

You've got a bizarre definition of "roleplay" that seems fixated entirely on systematizing everything about your character. I would argue that being so restrictive about what players are allowed to determine about their own characters is unhelpful for purposes of roleplay.

Dare I hazard a guess of a skeleton/strawman in this closet? Lower ability scores allow for better roleplaying?

[strangebloke]

Dare I hazard a guess of a skeleton/strawman in this closet? Lower ability scores allow for better roleplaying?

I don't want to second guess people's motivations. What I would say is that there's a mistaken idea that RP is something every player has to do and that this is the job of the DM to enforce. It's fine for people play gruff gamist tacticians who don't have very much in the way of social skills. In a sense, that's a coherent character concept for the purposes of roleplay. If a player instead want to play an idiot - I've a zealot barbarian in my party who deliberately refuses to learn anything about her nominal religion - that's also fine.

I find its helpful to figure out what a player finds enjoyable in your game, and, if its not disruptive, to let them have it.

[Zuras]

As you had the OP, do you want to clarify as to what your intent was with the post? I mentioned this is a previous post.

“Player’s tactics”, the term used, could be either “character tactics” (because the Player is determining the character tactics), or “Players vs DM tactics.”

I mean, having a copy of the Monster Manual on hand to pull up the stats of whatever you’re currently fighting, so as to know all it’s capabilities and weaknesses, and then sharing those with the other Players, is a tactic that can be used while playing 5e, though it has nothing to do with character tactics (I wouldn’t appreciate this type of tactic, btw).

Was your intent to include this type of meta gaming in your “tactics” question; or was your OP about how PCs interact with their in-game surroundings and character-based knowledge more to what you were looking for? Or perhaps a third item I’m not considering?


My original question was essentially “regarding player tactics, what do you consider basic/minimally competent, proficient, and advanced”.

To me, the question of metagaming and the player/character knowledge divide is an entirely separate debate. Superior tactics should allow you to defeat a Vampire more easily. The metagaming issue only affects whether the PCs use those tactics the first time they fight a Vampire or in a subsequent encounter (possibly after in-game research).

(Edited to add)
Either way, once the players know the basics of their weaknesses, making sure the party has a source of radiant damage would be basic tactics, while the Moon Druid wild shaping into a giant constrictor snake to restrain the Vampire and force disadvantage against the Cleric’s Sacred Flame saves or using Protection from Evil and Good on the Barbarian before the fight would be more advanced tactics.

[Sorinth]

Seems like a lot of work for no purpose. My attitude is more like this: Players can choose to make their OOC knowledge their in-character knowledge, with the caveat that this information is prone to error and might be wrong. If they want accurate information, they need to roll for it. Perhaps because I run a custom setting and storyline, and frequently reskin enemies (this isn't a hobgoblin, its a guard!) I rarely have a problem with players who gloat about knowing some detail about the statblock.

And if they do, hey, fine for them.

The only thing I ban is looking up monster statblocks mid-combat, and that's more just because it slows the game down.

Having the DM customize/reskin all the monsters just so players don't automatically know things their character shouldn't seems like a bad solution to the problem. Beyond just putting even more work on the DM it's also bound to lead to situations where a player gets upset. If the player did the whole Banishment to end a charm thing and it doesn't work because the DM has customized this vampire to exclude that workaround, the player is probably going to be upset and feel like the DM is being unfair.

[KorvinStarmast]

Having the DM customize/reskin all the monsters just so players don't automatically know things their character shouldn't seems like a bad solution to the problem. That's not what he's asserting, as I read strangebloke's post.

Players know a character for a few hundred hours of play.

Characters have been in their world all of their lives. There are a large number of things that they'd learn growing up (stories, lore, experience, teaching, learning on the job, hearing from the local shaman) that allow for a great many things a character knows 'in universe' such that the "how do you know that?" question is as often as not a case of DM asshattery.
(Mind you, I have had to ask two of my players "Stop Opening the MM during combat!" (we play over roll20) because they've taken things a bit too far in that regard. They have agreed in good faith that once initiative is rolled, no look ups, which is good enough for me).

In a supernatural world every character will know some of the things that are supernatural, know of them, and know 'something' about them. But how much something will they know about how many things?

Here is where nature checks, and history checks, and arcana checks can help both a DM and a player arrive at "just how much do you know about werewolves and how much of the lore that you know is mistaken?" for the level of in world knowledge that one has.

"You can't know that since you haven't fought/killed that" is too extreme of a response, just as the stupid rules in Xanathar's about druids and wild shape are stupid. OK, rest of rant excised other than ... FFS, druids are all about wildlife and beasts. It's their whole Thing, man!

[strangebloke]

Having the DM customize/reskin all the monsters just so players don't automatically know things their character shouldn't seems like a bad solution to the problem. Beyond just putting even more work on the DM it's also bound to lead to situations where a player gets upset. If the player did the whole Banishment to end a charm thing and it doesn't work because the DM has customized this vampire to exclude that workaround, the player is probably going to be upset and feel like the DM is being unfair.
It's not a solution to the 'problem' of metagaming, its something I do for the sake of variety that has a side effect of making knowledge checks more useful.

For example, there's a subset of vampires in my setting who have managed to alter the nature of their curse to allow them to (seem to be) more human than they otherwise would. This group of vampires is small and relatively unknown, and (because they're a custom type of monster) unknown to my players. There was a moment during a mystery section where it became clear that an NPC might have been turned to a vampire, but they had also seen the vampire during the day, so it seemed impossible. This was where one of the players' high religion modifier came in clutch.

My players end up fighting guards a lot. They're rabbl-rousers. But I don't want every guard in every city to be the same. Stromshet has a storied alchemical tradition, so the guards there have improved arms and armor relative to their peers in say Alchor or Gruenhapt. Though as far as that goes, the Gruenhapt guards are trained to fight with better teamwork, and the Alchor guards are going to have higher HP and higher attack modifiers. In practice this means that the Stromshet guards have higher AC, the Gruenhapt guards are hobgoblins in scale, and the Alchor guards are (humorously) just reskinned orcs. The players know I do this, and so they don't make assumptions based off stat blocks. This doesn't 'solve' the 'problem,' it highlights how depending on your style, metagaming in this way may not even be useful to players.

But with all that said, I don't view this sort of metagaming as a problem at all, for all the reasons mentioned above. It's only metagaming if its OOC knowledge, and its only OOC knowledge if you (the DM) say it has to be OOC knowledge, or force them to make a check.

Metagaming is a problem when players use it to cheat at an adventure module, or use it to game social interactions with another player. Stuff like "I go check the rogue's satchel while he's sleeping to see if I can borrow some snacks. Oh, what's this??? My missing family heirloom???" is a problem, but its usually downstream of OOC problems rather than being the cause of it.


"You can't know that since you haven't fought/killed that" is too extreme of a response, just as the stupid rules in Xanathar's about druids and wild shape are stupid. OK, rest of rant excised other than ... FFS, druids are all about wildlife and beasts. It's their whole Thing, man!

Precisely. I think of the moment in the Two Towers with the Oliphant. Sam hasn't made a dedicated study of beasts, certainly not exotic ones from thousands of miles from the shire. He wasn't literate until he was an adult and he was a poor gardener. But Oliphants are big and cool and so someone in his childhood told him a poem about one once. Frodo's heard of them too. The only one who hadn't heard of them was Gollum, who's ironically the best travelled of them and the oldest, but someone who's been an absolute recluse from all kinds of decent society.

Even isolated farmers will share spooky campfire stories about the vampire king that was known to have existed a hundred miles away in the mystical lands of Albania Zaro, or of the dread Githyanki corsairs who laid waste to the city of Mathlin two centuries prior, or of the Illithid slavers who are said to lurk in the depths of the astral sea. And most PCs are not originally simple farmers, they're folk heroes and merchants and scholars and soldiers. Well-travelled or well-read people, generally. And even if your PC was a total recluse once, the premise of the game is that our heroes are travelling and chatting and sharing stories, both with each other and with random strangers.

Such knowledge is commonplace, and might be incorrect, but then as I said, players don't really have perfect memories either and a lot of what they're remembering might be old lore that no longer applies (like the nature of the HElf/Drow schism) The first time I threw a bunch of Slaad at my players they had no idea what to make of it!

[RSP]

Here is where nature checks, and history checks, and arcana checks can help both a DM and a player arrive at "just how much do you know about werewolves and how much of the lore that you know is mistaken?" for the level of in world knowledge that one has.

Except metagame knowledge takes this out of the DMs hands and allows the player to just decide the character autosucceeded, so it’s a moot point. And remember: checks are only used when something is in question. If the DM already decided the characters have no chance of knowing something, then

So it sounds like your argument with using these checks is “players shouldn’t use metagame knowledge when the DM doesn’t think their characters should have that knowledge.”

Which is my argument, too, by the way.


My original question was essentially “regarding player tactics, what do you consider basic/minimally competent, proficient, and advanced”…

So not really tactics as in utilizing in-game terrain and situation-based circumstances to either the party’s advantage, or the enemy’s disadvantage (note: I’m not using those terms as the game terms “Advantage” or “Disadvantage”).

You seem to be referring to attacking mechanical soft-spots in abilities or enemies, which, yeah, doesn’t care about any meta gaming issue, as it already assumes it.

That is, it’s “advanced tactics” to use Radiant damage against a vampire, because they have Vulnerability to it and so every instance of damage will be twice as effective as any non-Radiant damage of equal strength.

However, there’s really nothing advanced about this (in my opinion at least). Once you know the mechanical weakness, exploiting it is just common sense.

I think this is what Frogreaver was getting at in his response to your Vampire’s Charm situation: if you know the mechanics of the ability, and what causes it to fail, then using that mechanical weakness to end the effect isn’t really “advanced”, it’s a simple A beats B type thing.

A more well known version of this is “damage breaks Concentration”, which leads to the common: if an enemy is using a powerful Concentration effect, do damage to them to stop it.” I mean, it’s not really advanced tactics to attack the Shaman who just successfully Fear-ed the rest of the PCs; it’s just using the basic knowledge of what counters that specific ability.

I was referring to “advanced tactics” in the sense of small unit tactics to set an ambush to defeat a more powerful force; but you seem to be asking about how often Players are using “advanced knowledge” of the mechanics of the game to exploit known weaknesses of the enemies or their abilities.

Does that seem accurate as you were referring to things?

[stoutstien]

Low level tactics:
Positioning
Understand advantage/disadvantage

Minimal planning with turn order

Target prioritizing

Mid level tactics:

Resource management

Understanding Action economy

Using actions to do something other than damage. Dodge, help and ready action are amazing once you figure them out.

Implement adv/dis

Understand damage types

Understand saves vs attacks and when to use them.

Battlefield control

Counterspell/ dispel magic mini game

Prebuffing

High level tactics:

Information control via scouting, divination, and misdirection. Also counter tactics to prevent the same against the party via non detection and so on.

Understand how and when unavoidable damage sources can be used to blender tough targets

Action(s) denial as the best form of mitigation

Know when and how overcoming challenges cheaply is better than quickly

Expert level tactics:

Understand diminishing returns on hyper focusing on one aspect of the game.

Damage is probably the least effective technique to address challenges with

Assume your plan A will never work

Redundancy in resources isn't a waste of opportunity costs.

If your not hosting bring snacks

[Kvess]

I consistently hear that damage is not the most effective thing a caster could do, but as a DM I’ve seen multiple encounters where the module’s designers clearly assumed the party would have access to fireball (three massive hordes of mummies in a Candlekeep adventure) and nearly every other tactic would be painfully slow to deal with it.

[stoutstien]

I consistently hear that damage is not the most effective thing a caster could do, but as a DM I’ve seen multiple encounters where the module’s designers clearly assumed the party would have access to fireball (three massive hordes of mummies in a Candlekeep adventure) and nearly every other tactic would be painfully slow to deal with it.

Mummies are slow, have bad AC, and dex saves. Depending on how DM plays how they react to fire you could easily just herd them into a death funnel without even using a spell slot. They are just slightly different zombies.

[Zuras]

I consistently hear that damage is not the most effective thing a caster could do, but as a DM I’ve seen multiple encounters where the module’s designers clearly assumed the party would have access to fireball (three massive hordes of mummies in a Candlekeep adventure) and nearly every other tactic would be painfully slow to deal with it.

Saying “raw damage is usually the least efficient use of your spell slots” is entirely accurate. That doesn’t mean you don’t want at least one high damage single target spell and a couple of AoEs in your repertoire. Level for level, battlefield control spells usually give you the most advantage for the resources spent, they’re just more niche in usefulness. Spells like Wall of Stone and Plant Growth are amazing action denial if the geometry of the encounter allows it, they just require significantly more work to get the most out of them than fireball.

Even if you’re primarily a control caster, you should have some way of doing damage. Among the more tactical tables I’ve played & DMed at, it’s not uncommon for the poor Knowledge or Grave Cleric who wanted to sit back and support to be forced to wade into a horde or hold a choke point while dodging with Spirit Guardians, hoping their 18 or 19 AC will hold up.

[False God]

Basic tactics are about knowing yourself and what you're capable of, and how you can use that to your allies benefit.

Moderate tactics are about knowing your party's strengths and weaknesses and how you can work together to maximize your strengths and cover each others weaknesses.

Advanced tactics are about understanding the enemy's strength's and weaknesses and exploiting them.

And I don't mean this from a numbers standpoint like with whiteroom experiments. I mean this from an actual play experience. How often do you really land hits? How often do you really fail saves? How often do your allies? How much damage can you actually take? How much can your allies?

There are specific examples that could go along with this but I generally see people having a mix of all 3 in any given game. They know what one or two party members can do, they know about half their own abilities, and they know a few enemies are weak to fire or easily frightened. I structure them this way because it's a "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" sort of situation. The first is going to change slowly over time, as you level up. The second will change in the same degree, but there's more to keep track of, and some of it isn't relevant to you. You'll need to understand what you need to know, and what you don't. The latter will change often and you may never know the full details, nor will the enemy tell you what they're capable of (sometimes sure, but it's not reliable in the way that speaking with your fellow players/party members can inform you of their capabilities).

I find this quote to be applicable:
... as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know.
Your character should be a known known. Your party members are known unknowns. The enemy is an unknown unknown. Hence the way I structured it above.

Knowing what the enemy is capable of doesn't help you much if you don't know what you can do, and I've seen this in play from people who can "clearly see" how powerful or weak an enemy is, but still can't figure out how to defeat them because they don't know what their character and party are capable of.

Knowing what you are good at is great, but not terribly helpful in group gameplay on it's own. You're an area-of-control wizard but you keep dropping AOEs on your party members who don't have good saves in that area. Knowing you can take a lot of hits but not knowing the party has very little healing to support you.

[Zuras]

Basic tactics are about knowing yourself and what you're capable of, and how you can use that to your allies benefit.

Moderate tactics are about knowing your party's strengths and weaknesses and how you can work together to maximize your strengths and cover each others weaknesses.

Advanced tactics are about understanding the enemy's strength's and weaknesses and exploiting them.

And I don't mean this from a numbers standpoint like with whiteroom experiments. I mean this from an actual play experience. How often do you really land hits? How often do you really fail saves? How often do your allies? How much damage can you actually take? How much can your allies?


This is a tidy division of different types of tactical knowledge, but does it really encapsulate the distinctions between a player who has a basic grasp of tactics versus a superior tactician? At least in my experience, superior tactics is about situational awareness and a deep understanding of how to use action economy to your advantage. That always requires you understand something of everyone’s available actions, but that’s not all or often even most of the puzzle.

I can partially agree, insofar as the most egregiously bad tactics I have seen in 5e were from players who understood neither their character nor the basic team concept doing things like rushing their 15 AC Bard into melee to maximize the targets for their Thunderwave.

The more advanced tacticians, on the other hand, are familiar with the whole party’s abilities, but the key element they understand is denying the opponent effective actions and using a divide and conquer approach to defeat them in detail, whether the method is kiting them, pinning half of them to the ceiling with Reverse Gravity, or simply shutting a door.

Obviously knowledge of the team and your enemies is important, but I think good situational and environmental awareness are the key aspects to proficient tactics. My personal examples of worst 5e tactics, for example, is a full caster who goes an entire Tier 3 fight against the final module boss without casting a leveled spell and a party that couldn’t manage to kill an enemy wizard (with less than 50 hp) till after three turns of AoEs.

Great tactics is killing the enemy wizard before they can get a spell off, but the party really needs a remedial tactics course if they can’t manage to focus fire on someone after the first fireball.

[SociopathFriend]

Well I have two DMs- one that understands the game quite well and is willing to fudge things to help the story along- and one that is extremely book-bound and rarely, if ever, improvises or changes combat or stat blocks.

For the former you really don't need a given level of tactics to succeed. He'll work around the level of tactics you demonstrate but anything can function fine- he'll punish you if you do something blatantly stupid like a Rogue sneaking off on his own and being caught but he'll generally try decently hard to keep you alive.

The latter likes grids and requires a bit more thought. The issue is that he often believes 'tactics' enables you to do the impossible as he bases his belief on what players can do on 3.5 and 2e where one super-build could basically solo entire encounters. The DM was never someone who made such things and so to him "optimized" means "magically wins for some reason". For example our first session involved 21 max hp Barbarians with Pack Tactics vs only four adventurers at Level 4 with average/rolled hp. He assumed we'd win that- that's not the full list of enemies either. Later on when everyone was Level 5 he indicated he would throw half a dozen Frost Giants at us and I, who he broached the idea to prior to the session, advised him not to throw all of them in at once- because that would be death.

The latter DM's current campaign sits somewhere between Advanced and Proficient I think. We have a Twin-Hasting Sorcerer that's happy to buff party members because he wants the Ranger to be pumping out his "I hit the same guy and do extra damage and I have Sharpshooter" ranged attacks as often as possible. There's a Life Cleric that took the Healer feat and supplies a fairly ludicrous amount of healing too. I myself am an Eldritch Knight with the Blindfighting Style and a penchant for creating Darkness to gather enemies around and whup on them.

Several players have spent quite a bit of time talking about 'builds' and whether they need a feat or an ASI at a given level. I personally don't want to min/max like that which is why I don't have GWM despite using a Halberd. Another player seems relatively unable to grasp the game (he still needs to ask what to do over a year into the campaign) and another player actually IS a newbie at D&D. So I say on average we're between Advanced and Proficient.

Our strategies are pretty generalized- not customized for a given encounter or creature. Albeit the last several sessions have been purely Giants so there's not a general need for customization:
Hit him first
Hit him hard
Hit him a lot
Heal whoever the Giant hit

[False God]

This is a tidy division of different types of tactical knowledge, but does it really encapsulate the distinctions between a player who has a basic grasp of tactics versus a superior tactician? At least in my experience, superior tactics is about situational awareness and a deep understanding of how to use action economy to your advantage. That always requires you understand something of everyone’s available actions, but that’s not all or often even most of the puzzle.

I can partially agree, insofar as the most egregiously bad tactics I have seen in 5e were from players who understood neither their character nor the basic team concept doing things like rushing their 15 AC Bard into melee to maximize the targets for their Thunderwave.

The more advanced tacticians, on the other hand, are familiar with the whole party’s abilities, but the key element they understand is denying the opponent effective actions and using a divide and conquer approach to defeat them in detail, whether the method is kiting them, pinning half of them to the ceiling with Reverse Gravity, or simply shutting a door.

Obviously knowledge of the team and your enemies isn’t important, but I think good situational and environmental awareness are the key aspects to proficient tactics. My personal examples of worst 5e tactics, for example, is a full caster who goes an entire Tier 3 fight against the final module boss without casting a leveled spell and a party that couldn’t manage to kill an enemy wizard (with less than 50 hp) till after three turns of AoEs.

Great tactics is killing the enemy wizard before they can get a spell off, but the party really needs a remedial tactics course if they can’t manage to focus fire on someone after the first fireball.

I would argue that Situational Awareness flows under the same sort of pyramid. To reference MMOs:
Are you in the fire? What should you do to get it out of it?
Are your friends in the fire? How can you help them get out of it?
Is the enemy in the fire? How can you get them into it?

Knowing what you can do, and knowing how you can do it implies a level of "knowing what is appropriate to do in this situation" based on what level of knowledge you/your character possesses. If you are in a tight hallway and have a large shield, perhaps blocking the door is a good approach, but the second level then accounts for "are you blocking LOS for your allies by doing so?". The third level then accounts for "what is the enemy going to be able to do in response to your action."

[Kvess]

Mummies are slow, have bad AC, and dex saves. Depending on how DM plays how they react to fire you could easily just herd them into a death funnel without even using a spell slot. They are just slightly different zombies.

That’s all well and good, but if you’re picking off one mummy at a time and there are about three waves of 40 mummies clustered tightly together, it’s pretty clear that the designers expected the party to have access to AOE damage spells. And if the horde of mummies is a screen for a target instead of the main event, as was the case in the particular Candlekeep adventure, that somewhat reduces your options for bypassing them.

Could you use battlefield control spells to make this an easy but tedious fight, sure. But that’s not a fight anyone wants to play, when you could just incinerate the lot of them in a round.

When you see a party where every character exclusively takes battlefield control spells, it’s hard to avoid thinking that the players outsmarted themselves.

[stoutstien]

That’s all well and good, but if you’re picking off one mummy at a time and there are about three waves of 40 mummies clustered tightly together, it’s pretty clear that the designers expected the party to have access to AOE damage spells. And if the horde of mummies is a screen for a target instead of the main event, as was the case in the particular Candlekeep adventure, that somewhat reduces your options for bypassing them.

Could you use battlefield control spells to make this an easy but tedious fight, sure. But that’s not a fight anyone wants to play, when you could just incinerate the lot of them in a round.

When you see a party where every character exclusively takes battlefield control spells, it’s hard to avoid thinking that the players outsmarted themselves.

I said damage is rarely the best option not damage is never the best option. Some blasting is advised but it's has diminishing returns.

No idea what the writer had planned for that particular challenge. Seems more like an attempt to drain resources than anything else so its a question of what the party has available at the time. Depending on how close the waves are to each other you could take them out with a wall of fire which IMO is a better trade than 3 different 3+ spell slots. Could also form a corridor to get to the main target with the same spell.

Maybe it was a chance to let turn undead shine?

I don't own candlelight my self. I remember flipping through it and wasn't impressed.

[Rynjin]

Out of curiosity, for the players who focus fire all the time, does the DM also focus fire on the PCs?

Maybe it's just me but it doesn't sound fun as a player if the DM consistently has all monsters (Semi-Intelligent?) target a single PC every combat because that's the optimal strategy it. And if the players are using rule knowledge to play super tactically but the DM isn't then what's the point?

This is sort of the 4th, meta layer of both tactics and optimization: understanding the "goose and gander clause" of gameplay.

It's why cheese is typically to be avoided on the players' side, save perhaps for special occasions and big cool moments, same as asking GM permission to do something very cool but off-book.

MAD does not only stand for Multiple Attribute Dependent. =p

[Zuras]

This is sort of the 4th, meta layer of both tactics and optimization: understanding the "goose and gander clause" of gameplay.

It's why cheese is typically to be avoided on the players' side, save perhaps for special occasions and big cool moments, same as asking GM permission to do something very cool but off-book.

MAD does not only stand for Multiple Attribute Dependent. =p

I keep hearing the argument that the DM will use your tactics against you or simply increase the difficulty of encounters as an objection to using smart tactics, but that argument seems to assume adversarial DMing.

The idea of a Player/DM arms race is ludicrous on it’s face—the DM has no limit to the firepower they can bring to bear. This doesn’t mean there aren’t real objections to abusing cheesy rules interactions or to running more optimized characters, it just isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) about an arms race.

Abusing cheesy rules interactions just annoys the DM and takes everyone out of the moment, turning the game from mechanics simulating your fictional world to mechanics driving your fictional world.

Similarly, a DM will want to challenge a table that regularly defeats significantly more dangerous challenges than the DMG adventuring day guidelines—challenging and entertaining players is part of the basic DM job description. The risk with higher difficult encounters is that bad luck or a few mistakes can become much more dangerous to the party than a standard scaled encounter.

Tactical players, in my experience, are doing it because they think the tactical complexities are fun, and get real enjoyment when a plan comes together. As a DM, to keep them entertained you give them a mix of smart and dumb opponents, so sometimes they can enjoy curb-stomping their enemies while feeling challenged other times, every so often throwing in a combat where their preferred strategies don’t work (close quarters ambush for a ranged party, an enemy using subtle spell for the counterspell-happy abjurer, etc.).

I do that stuff to keep the game interesting and make the players feel like the world is responding to their actions, not as part of an arms race with the players.

[sethdmichaels]

Low level tactics:
Positioning
Understand advantage/disadvantage

Minimal planning with turn order

Target prioritizing

...

i generally agree with the breakdown in this list. an intermediate-level level of tactical thinking i'd add:
- hit points are a resource. it's not the worst thing in the world to lose a few; that's what they're there for.
- know enough about your character's set of available actions/bonus actions/reactions/features to be able to change strategies when necessary. have a picture in mind for how your turn is going to go, but get to your backups quickly.
- set up other players to use their abilities and notice when other players have set up an opening to use yours.

RP-wise, a lot of actual people aren't deep tactical thinkers, and a lot of actual people are missing-the-forest-for-the-trees overthinkers, so it makes sense that some characters are going to behave in those ways! the most interesting narrative stuff that comes out of combat, for both players and DMs, are often about suboptimal tactical decisions that change the dynamics in unexpected ways, or new strategies found as workarounds for impulsively-chosen or failed tactics.

[Frogreaver]

One other thought, it's not enough to know what your allies and enemies 'can' do. Being able to predict what they will do matters even more for tactical considerations.

[Rynjin]

I keep hearing the argument that the DM will use your tactics against you or simply increase the difficulty of encounters as an objection to using smart tactics, but that argument seems to assume adversarial DMing.

The idea of a Player/DM arms race is ludicrous on it’s face—the DM has no limit to the firepower they can bring to bear. This doesn’t mean there aren’t real objections to abusing cheesy rules interactions or to running more optimized characters, it just isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) about an arms race.

Abusing cheesy rules interactions just annoys the DM and takes everyone out of the moment, turning the game from mechanics simulating your fictional world to mechanics driving your fictional world.

Similarly, a DM will want to challenge a table that regularly defeats significantly more dangerous challenges than the DMG adventuring day guidelines—challenging and entertaining players is part of the basic DM job description. The risk with higher difficult encounters is that bad luck or a few mistakes can become much more dangerous to the party than a standard scaled encounter.

Tactical players, in my experience, are doing it because they think the tactical complexities are fun, and get real enjoyment when a plan comes together. As a DM, to keep them entertained you give them a mix of smart and dumb opponents, so sometimes they can enjoy curb-stomping their enemies while feeling challenged other times, every so often throwing in a combat where their preferred strategies don’t work (close quarters ambush for a ranged party, an enemy using subtle spell for the counterspell-happy abjurer, etc.).

I do that stuff to keep the game interesting and make the players feel like the world is responding to their actions, not as part of an arms race with the players.

It's not so much an adversarial thing, but it's more of a matter of "what kind of game do you want to have?".

If the players want to abuse broken game mechanics, that usually tells me they want a game that's a bit...wackier. if they DON'T want a game that's wackier, I'll straight up ask "This is a bit silly, are you sure you want to push the game up to this 'tier'?". The same goes for using advanced tactics.

Presumably, if a party is using really advanced, sophisticated tactics against enemies, they want encounters that justify this, yes? After all, there's no point in flexing your mental muscles if all the encounter actually CALLS for is a straight up brawl. So once again "is this the game we want to be playing?".

Often the answer is yes. Sometimes it's no. If the answer is no, I'll ask they put aside the initial plan, or put a stipulation that it should be a one-time thing.

I had a player come up with the idea of using a pretty busted spell (Wraith Form) in a Pathfinder game because he realized a dungeon they'd scouted out could be completely trivialized by an incorporeal character. I told them if they wanted to use the spell (and the party was fine with them soloing the dungeon), they could. Once. We'd basically just say he killed everything offscreen, good job. Now delete the spell from your spellbook and pick a new one.

Because if every encounter is going to boil down to "is it vulnerable to Wraith Form?" that's not going to be fun, which means I'm going to have to start heavily tweaking encounters.

[Carlobrand]

One other thought, it's not enough to know what your allies and enemies 'can' do. Being able to predict what they will do matters even more for tactical considerations.

Knowing what your enemy can do depends on intelligence - gathering information, not the stat score: your info from the tavern suggests an opposing wizard, you prepare for an opposing wizard. Predicting what they will do starts with narrowing their options: you spot a likely wizard in the opposing ranks, you cast silence on the wizard or otherwise act to neutralize him.

[noob]

My take. What often gets considered good 'tactical play' is usually not. For example, Focus Fire is often an overrated tactic - because it tends to put team PC in a place where they can be focus fired as well.

I would list the tactical levels as this

1) Tactic Identification - 'when we do X we seem to be more efficient, therefore we should do X more often'
2) Efficiency Assessment - 'determining which tactic is going to be more efficient in a given situation'
3) Risk Identification - 'being able to identify the risks inherent to utilizing a given tactic'
4) Risk Assessment - 'determining which tactics have the best levels of efficiency compared to risk'

Often times players think they are great tacticians solely because they are good at doing 1. More tactical players realize that even 'bad' tactics can be good sometimes and even 'good' tactics can be bad sometimes. That's what 2 is about. Very few players ever think about Risk, instead they are stuck on efficiency. That's why 3 is so important. Then even of those that understand risk is important they have a tendency to either over value risk or over value efficiency.

I think in my party the focus is on "what is the quantity of risk taken" more than any of the other things.
There is not really much tactic identification and more "How do we avoid dying for reason X" and "how do we solve that entire problem without even being present"
We do not care about efficient: we can decide to spend literally weeks doing weird preparations before doing a fight.
And I think people should not care about efficiency this much because it is not being efficient that makes you win a fight: it is making so that there is no options for the opponent to fight back, make so that you are not even here and make so that your opponent was killed from orbit by 10000 rocks dropped simultaneously by flying characters (when we did that it took weeks of spending tons of different resources: it was in no way efficient but it did the job with no risks).
Despite that we get killed so often it is silly.
If you are going on the battlefield you are going to die while dying during your death from dying.

[KorvinStarmast]

That’s all well and good, but if you’re picking off one mummy at a time and there are about three waves of 40 mummies clustered tightly together, it’s pretty clear that the designers expected the party to have a cleric who can turn undead. :smallbiggrin:

[noob]

a cleric who can turn undead. :smallbiggrin:

How many clerics can actually turn undead?

[KorvinStarmast]

How many clerics can actually turn undead? All of them.
Every single cleric subclass gets turn undead as a channel divinity at level 2, and one other option as well. It's in the PHB.