Originally Posted by
chirine ba kal
May I respectfully disagree? In yesterday's D&D session, we had a very disparate group: Drow Ranger, Human Fighter, Tiefling Ranger, Tiefling Warlock, Human Monk, Human Cleric (me). All 1st level, except for the Drow who is 2nd. The first time this group played, they had the usual loose band of adventurers and got slaughtered; the second time, they used some of my tactical ideas and survived. This third session, they adopted the tactical fomation we used to use all the time, and breezed through Castle Blackmoor's 2nd level with no problems.
What we use to call ' the marching order was: 1st rank - H. Monk, H. Fighter; 2nd - T. Ranger, T. Warlock; 3rd - H. Cleric, D. Ranger. The idea is that the armored people are front and back, with the lightly-armored people in the middle, and these also have ranged weapons/spells to provide 'fire support' to the engaged ranks. So, her looked into a room, and the front two checked it out while the middle two covered them and us; we got hit from behind, but we'd kept a good look-out; the 'Shade' hit my partner, and the Ranger hit it with an arrow and I hit it with a spell. Killed it dead; this was the sort of being that had nearly wiped out the party in the previous game session, and the new 'tactical' approach that the party took made all the difference, the group thought. I got some very nice words from all of them, and I was very pleased to see them using my experiences and advice; I am not the party leader, but I am turning into a sort of 'elder statesman' / veteran adventurer...
So, what I'd call 'micro-tactics', which is what I think Gronan was getting at, and a very diverse group - but maximized to take advantage of strengths and minimize weaknesses . And a very diverse modern kind of group, which is what I think you were getting at.
Bookmarks