PDA

View Full Version : Tactically Inclined Dm issue



quiet1mi
2008-05-26, 02:39 PM
My problem as a Dm is that I am too tactically inclined from playing many war games.

The issue arises when my players are not as tactically inclined. The result is the players being destroyed by things many levels bellow them (an example is a 6 bandits (level 1-2 warriors), using the basic hit and run tactic, nearly destroyed a group of level 4 adventurers (they ran away and the caravan they were guarding was destroyed).



My question is threefold.

Ideally what Intelligence would a creature require to be tactically inclined?
What sort of tactics are used by stupid enemies with low intelligence?
Should I just Include an Npc (Expert)that can guide the Players through
basic tactics until they can keep themselves from falling for basic ticks?


Thank you for any response...

KazilDarkeye
2008-05-26, 02:48 PM
Wisdom can also come into play here, and many "dumb, hulking monsters" have average Wisdom scores.

Intelligence helps you come up with an idea
Wisdom can tell you whether this plan is good or not
Charisma helps you convince other (less Wisdom-inclined) people that a plan is good.

Soup of Kings
2008-05-26, 03:12 PM
1: Dunno. Doesn't take much for basic tactics, although genius level stuff would obviously require a higher than average score. Someone else could probably help you on this.

2: Brute force. At the most they might sit in a room and wait to ambush players, but most are attack on sight.

3: Yeah. Sounds like they could use the help.

Epinephrine
2008-05-26, 03:16 PM
1) I'd say Int 2 or more. Animals typically behave tactically - a crocodile knows to hide, to pull prey into water, and to roll. Wolves know to use pack tactics, to hit the weakest. Really, it doesn't take a lot of intellect to take advantage of situations, or even to set up situations.

2) Depends. Most low Int creatures will have a few types of behaviour - wolves won't pretend to be other animals, won't dig pits or anything, but they will try to hamstring, aid each other, flank, gang up on and so on. They might try running a group , to tire them out, or to hit a straggler or scout, away from the group, but they won't come up with original ideas. I'd say decide how a creature enemy likes to fight, and plan it based on that.

3.) Players have to learn to think. An NPC might help them out at times, but really, they have to learn. Set up some situations if you must, where thinking and approaching it tactically provides a huge advantage. Let them dictate the engagements a few times, and see if they can learn to control things - and that'll teach them what not to allow to happen to themselves.

valadil
2008-05-26, 03:18 PM
If I were you I'd get the party used to some simpler combats before throwing anything tactically interesting at them. Just have some enemy that charges the party and each turn attacks whichever member is nearest or the biggest threat. Only once they can handle that should you move on to something a little different.

If the players really don't get it, try adding common sense checks to your game. A common sense check is a DC 5 wisdom roll. If the players succeed you tell them why their idea may not work. This is useful for showing them why splitting their magic missiles evenly among two uninjured opponents is rarely a good plan.

Kyalid
2008-05-26, 03:26 PM
3.: Why take an expert, you could also take a trained ex-soldier (e.g. a marshal, or a warrior), who has experienced some battles, has seen many tactics, raids, etc.
The advantage of it would be, that the PCs would be a bit more inclined to get some tips from a hardened warrior who turned old than from any civilian.
You could also just let them run into every trap possible to have them learn these tactics the hard way; it can be frustrating, but also raise the intellectual part of the evening when you have to guess which tactic your opponent uses now.

quiet1mi
2008-05-26, 04:48 PM
3. chose an expert because i do not want him to be a presence in combat but now that you mentioned it a battle-wise warrior of the vulnerable age would do nicely

nagora
2008-05-26, 06:03 PM
My problem as a Dm is that I am too tactically inclined from playing many war games.

The issue arises when my players are not as tactically inclined. The result is the players being destroyed by things many levels bellow them (an example is a 6 bandits (level 1-2 warriors), using the basic hit and run tactic, nearly destroyed a group of level 4 adventurers (they ran away and the caravan they were guarding was destroyed).


If that's how it's working then just tone down the opposition, say 3 bandits or whatever. If they start being able to handle small encounters then start pushing the numbers up. As the DM you are normally expected to throw things at the PCs that won't overwhelm them (unless they are stupid enough to ignore warnings) and this is just another example.

They'll learn tactics as they get the hang of your style. And just trying to give them an in-game trainer or babysitter won't work. If they're not learning now, they'll learn less when some NPC is yaking on at them or doing the thinking for them.

As to points 1 and 2. Int 7 or less, I would say is stupid enough to not change tactics when they're not working. But those tactics might be very good and perhaps even quite sophisticated for the limited situations the creature is used to.

By the time you get to Int 4 or 5, tactics are limited to "charge" or "jump out on them" and such like; no depth of thinking at all. Below 3 and you're into animal intelligence - they do what they do and that's all that they do (they're Popeye the Sailorman, toot toot! :smallbiggrin:)

Sounds fun for everyone, frankly.

weenie
2008-05-26, 06:24 PM
3. chose an expert because i do not want him to be a presence in combat but now that you mentioned it a battle-wise warrior of the vulnerable age would do nicely

Heh, it's venerable. Unless it was meant as a joke, in which case well done :smallsmile: