Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My D&D 5E Starter Set Quest and Campaign
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 6339622" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>Leaving aside the idea that personal experience might be a necessity for emulating something in a game, since clearly we'd have far fewer games if that were the case, I think we can safely both agree that "higher ground" does give some sort of advantage (small "a"). Once we pass that hurdle, then using one suggested bonus as a standard, whether established or not, seems an odd rubric. So, we're really just discussing a slight difference of opinion on how deadly we might want one portion of our game or another.</p><p></p><p>But think of it this way, if someone is far enough above someone else during combat, they are swinging weapons downward, the opposite being the case for the person below. The person above is swinging a higher percentage of the time at someone's head (leaving aside some types of monster opponents). Again, the opposite true for the person below. In your opinion, should there be a +2 for high ground *and* a -2 for low ground? Would it be more exciting for game play, for the players, to slide the full +4 (4-5 , as you mention) over to one side?</p><p></p><p>I'm comfortable with that being the Basic mechanic. That is to say, it's a decent simple math way of dealing with what, we both already agree, is an advantage . . . in the rules of the Basic game before we get into more advanced combat modules/options. I would not be in favor of the Basic rules having more granulated rules when it is already planned to design the advanced version with such in place. I like that a GM, in most cases, can simple assign Advantage/Disadvantage and be done with it. I like that it puts that mechanic in the hands of the players, quite often, for the sake of resolution.</p><p></p><p>Now, something I am looking at in the rules, as our group plays through them, is whether I would even want a more granulated set of combat rules. I've been wargaming 40+ years, a bit longer than D&D has been around, and all along side my RPGing history. I think it is fun to have combat mechanics in RPGs but if I want rules that focus on combat, generally speaking, I don't play an RPG, I play a wargame, a minis game, or the like. So, please understand, when a conversation comes up about one small aspect or another of the combat rules in an RPG, my first reaction is wondering if it can be removed entirely rather than to tweak it for the sake of "realism." The Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic goes a long way, IMO, toward slimming the rules for combat in an RPG and that's a big plus, IMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 6339622, member: 10479"] Leaving aside the idea that personal experience might be a necessity for emulating something in a game, since clearly we'd have far fewer games if that were the case, I think we can safely both agree that "higher ground" does give some sort of advantage (small "a"). Once we pass that hurdle, then using one suggested bonus as a standard, whether established or not, seems an odd rubric. So, we're really just discussing a slight difference of opinion on how deadly we might want one portion of our game or another. But think of it this way, if someone is far enough above someone else during combat, they are swinging weapons downward, the opposite being the case for the person below. The person above is swinging a higher percentage of the time at someone's head (leaving aside some types of monster opponents). Again, the opposite true for the person below. In your opinion, should there be a +2 for high ground *and* a -2 for low ground? Would it be more exciting for game play, for the players, to slide the full +4 (4-5 , as you mention) over to one side? I'm comfortable with that being the Basic mechanic. That is to say, it's a decent simple math way of dealing with what, we both already agree, is an advantage . . . in the rules of the Basic game before we get into more advanced combat modules/options. I would not be in favor of the Basic rules having more granulated rules when it is already planned to design the advanced version with such in place. I like that a GM, in most cases, can simple assign Advantage/Disadvantage and be done with it. I like that it puts that mechanic in the hands of the players, quite often, for the sake of resolution. Now, something I am looking at in the rules, as our group plays through them, is whether I would even want a more granulated set of combat rules. I've been wargaming 40+ years, a bit longer than D&D has been around, and all along side my RPGing history. I think it is fun to have combat mechanics in RPGs but if I want rules that focus on combat, generally speaking, I don't play an RPG, I play a wargame, a minis game, or the like. So, please understand, when a conversation comes up about one small aspect or another of the combat rules in an RPG, my first reaction is wondering if it can be removed entirely rather than to tweak it for the sake of "realism." The Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic goes a long way, IMO, toward slimming the rules for combat in an RPG and that's a big plus, IMO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My D&D 5E Starter Set Quest and Campaign
Top