Back to the doorway?

[Black Knight Irios]

There is nothing wrong with using choke points, IMO. One thing would annoy me tremendously if by moving you could not really attack well (like 3E BAB iterative attack users) b/c then no choke point means you will be more than useless, your damage output will suck and you can't really protect anyone in an open space.

But I believe that won't be the case for 5E. Even if fighters (defenders) will be less sticky there should be no insourmountable problem if they can still deal their damage. 'In your face' works most of the time if you're not as sticky as clue.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Kinky thread title.

 

[Umbran]

The biggest impression I got from the first playtest was a sense of disappointment of being stuck back in the doorway again. I don't want to go back.

I know that just standing in one place and rolling a basic to-hit for seven rounds running is uninteresting game play. However, I think getting too far away from real-world tactics in core play would do the game a disservice. This is a place where "realism" still has a part in the game - tactics that a real-world person might use should probably stay valid. Holding choke points, sniping from behind cover, and so on, should still be good ideas.

In the real world, hopping around like an amphetamine-laden rabbit is not usually a good idea in a fight. While you can create game-rules that support that activity, it will be unintuitive to those who have not yet gained rules-mastery.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In the real world, hopping around like an amphetamine-laden rabbit is not usually a good idea in a fight. While you can create game-rules that support that activity, it will be unintuitive to those who have not yet gained rules-mastery.

As a former LARPer and reenactor, walking briskly through the centre of a big brawl and shanking people as you go, never engaging works well enough that one of two things happened - either it got boring or there would be a hit squad aimed at you personally. Having a sword aimed at someone just narrows their concentration massively. Of course it loses to a shield wall or spear block - approch one of those things from the front and you die.

But hopping over their head if you could do it would destroy the shield wall or spear block - you'd probably be able to take three or four in the back before they disengaged and turned round (and if they are busy engaging someone from the front you've probably broken the line. Of course if the shield wall is in a double line, the second being reinforcements you are in deep trouble because they are ready to turn round and you're locally outnumbered about 4:1.

As for unintuitive combat, watch e.g. 300 or Troy. Then work on the basis that what those maniacs are doing (especially in 300) is actually decent play.

 

[was]

Always use the terrain to your advantage.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Always use the terrain to your advantage.

Quite so. And the question then, in my mind, is whether the system is going to enable taking practical, quasi-realistic advantage of terrain OTHER than a chokepoint. If doing so relies on gleeful, open defiance of all that would be sensible IRL then it's an issue for me.

For example, giving fighters any kind of cartoonish, video-game, "sweep the room" ability just to get them out of a doorway and into the open to take maximum advantage of that is the wrong approach. I'd rather see commonly encountered fantasy creatures who have unique weapons, or abilities, or vulnerabilities and it is THOSE things that should promote fighting them in the open.

Then there's the question of the vulnerabilties of certain PC's. If the ganking of wizards is going to be an issue then should wizards BE so gankable? If they are then THAT determines the tactics that sensibly will be employed to keep them safe in a fight - and that means chokepoints. And since doorways are frequently to be found in dungeons and other fantasy adventuring environments it seems rash to casually toss aside sensible real-world tactics of terrain utilization. Yes, it's repetitive to constantly fight in doorways ,but the game mechanics that are used to promote moving the fight to other places are IMPORTANT to have some superficial communication with reality. They have a significant effect upon the "feel" of the game as either over-the-top, wahoo!, epic cartoon fantasy, or fantasy that's closer to, "the real world - but with dragons."

This would be a difficult thing to just plug into a rules module. These are basic workings of the combat system that are naturally going to apply whether you run gritty reality or fantasy superheroes. The fantasy superheroes are going to be fighting anywhere and everywhere in any case, but you don't want it to come at the cost of the fans of gritty reality having to find another game to play.

 

[n00bdragon]

Yes, it's repetitive to constantly fight in doorways ,but the game mechanics that are used to promote moving the fight to other places are IMPORTANT to have some superficial communication with reality.

So what you're saying, if I'm reading this right, is that when push comes to shove realism is more important than fun? If you had to choose between a dull and uninteresting chokepoint meatgrinder of an encounter and "wahoo!, epic cartoon fantasy" you'd choose the former?

Also, what if you like that sort of thing? What if your bag of tea really is "wahoo!, epic cartoon fantasy"? Should D&D just leave you out in the cold because this is a serious historical re-enactment game?

 

[JamesonCourage]

So what you're saying, if I'm reading this right, is that when push comes to shove realism is more important than fun? If you had to choose between a dull and uninteresting chokepoint meatgrinder of an encounter and "wahoo!, epic cartoon fantasy" you'd choose the former?

While it may not be fun for you, can you at least leave room for people that find "more realistic" fights as more fun than "epic cartoon fantasy" fights?

To many people, using the world in intuitive ways makes for a fun game (it adds to their immersion, lets them act in a reliable world, etc.). So, using a chokepoint to slow enemy progress and limit their advance and your own danger is fun, not "dull and uninteresting."

Again, it's cool if you don't like it, but can't you see that "more realistic" is more fun to a lot of people, for various reasons?

Also, what if you like that sort of thing? What if your bag of tea really is "wahoo!, epic cartoon fantasy"? Should D&D just leave you out in the cold because this is a serious historical re-enactment game?

No, it shouldn't. It shouldn't force it the other way, either. I think this issue already got nailed, though: it boils down to the CaW vs. CaS argument. The best way to make both sides happy is probably to give "good" advice on encounter design: if you want your party not to use doorways every time, give them a reason to act differently. That is, make damaging terrain in the center of the room that they'd need to push enemies into, or maybe the enemies will knock a table over and fire arrows/throw spears (so you need to plow past the fortification and get to them, in the center of the room), or whatever.

But, it makes sense to use doorways, and it should make sense in-game, too. Why wouldn't it? Of course, the enemies could always not engage them, content to throw oil/light it on fire, move out of line of sight, go for reinforcements, set off traps, or whatever. If they don't have these things available to them, then it makes sense for the party to exploit their weaknesses, much as they'd use fire against creatures with vulnerability to fire. And, if you don't like their weaknesses being exploited, it's back to CaW vs. CaS, and you should make sure encounters encourage open-field fighting.

At least, that's my take on it. I don't think there's a good way to get around the doorway issue. You can give your Fighter a Whirlwind Attack ability, but if the party decides that staying in the doorway is better for resource management (through saving HP that would be lost from open-field fighting), then they're just going to stay in the doorway anyways (unless there's a reason not to, such as saving hostages, escaping quickly, using terrain, etc.). As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

So what you're saying, if I'm reading this right, is that when push comes to shove realism is more important than fun? If you had to choose between a dull and uninteresting chokepoint meatgrinder of an encounter and "wahoo!, epic cartoon fantasy" you'd choose the former?

Also, what if you like that sort of thing? What if your bag of tea really is "wahoo!, epic cartoon fantasy"? Should D&D just leave you out in the cold because this is a serious historical re-enactment game?

A game system should pick one and do it as well as it can. If I want wahoo, I'll reach for a game that does wahoo well. If I want more grit, I'll reach for a game that does grit well.

Gamers aren't being left in the cold when designers decide to focus a game to do something well any more than carpenters are being left in the cold because the new screwdrivers have a light handle and contoured grip so they give better experience when removing screws but can't hammer nails worth crap.

*edit* What I don't need is yet another game that does nothing particularly well.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think how "open" a battle is really depends on how you run your games. I've had 4e games where bottle-necking is the best way to go about things, I've had 3e games with large open "mobile" battles.

You really do have to have different sorts of enemies for it. You could have an "open" battle with a bunch of low-health, lightly-armored archers, making it easier for anyone to take one out. But yes, if you run a bunch of high-power melee brutes who hold the melee in one place while they're bombarded from afar by casters and archers who can freely pick off squichy targets, yeah.

I mean you really just need two different strategies for these kinds of fights.