Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
So you don't like Whirlwind Attack, then? (Or the Bride vs. the Crazy-88s?)
Back to the doorway?
- Thread starter Aenghus
- Start date
So you don't like Whirlwind Attack, then? (Or the Bride vs. the Crazy-88s?)
"As a former..." is merely an appeal to authority, I'm afraid. And, since I myself have also done (and still do) those things, I don't see you as much of an authority over me. I mean, if you can lay claim to having won an SCA throne by right of arms, okay, you win, but let's not otherwise get into credentials-sizing.
You yourself noted the failure mode of the tactic.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Either I'm not phrasing it well (I do not apologize for my biases, however) or you are indeed misreading. What I'm saying is that if given a choice between realism and wahoo at the base of the rules - give me realism 100 times out of 100. Wahoo, I think, can be added by anyone, anywhere, at any time to whatever level makes them happy from the sublime to the truly ridiculous. I don't want to see the game play to the wahoo end of the scale by sacrificing a decent amount of realism in the name of "fun". But these are the choices that game desgners get paid the big bucks to make.
I've enjoyed noting many times before that D&D, written fiction, and tv/movies share many facets - and yet they are all VERY different media at the same time and some things just don't work as well in one as they do in the other. As we all know D&D can be played taking very different approaches, not just from the way the DM presents his campaign world but the distinct ways in which players can approach gameplay even aside from how the rules themselves may be leaning. I love the heck out of the Bride vs. the Crazy-88. I also love Seven Samurai. Do I have to play wahoo rules for Beatrix Kiddo in order to get a character something close to Takashi Shimura's notably grittier Kanbei? Rules that build in a choice of one or the other approach will obviously and inevitably alienate half of players out there.
It is therefore, IMO, easier to default to chokepoints being the natural choice and then provide motivations to move the fight elsewhere than to deault to "Anywhere but another doorway!" and have to fight the rules to have a fight in a doorway make mechanical sense.
Black Knight Irios
Explorer
So the question at hand is: What do you want in the core rules 'realism' or 'wahoo'?
I totally understand that some are saying, D&D had never over the top action outside of magical powers. Therefore, the core should be rather 'realistic' like using choke points for tactical advantage.
Others say/ask, why can't D&D be more 'wahooy'?
I say, make the core rules more 'realistic' but give us a 'wahoo' module. Now everyone is fine.
I personally would like to use the 'wahoo' module because I like it when those fighters/rangers/rogues can show off over the top stunts like jumping upwards on falling rocks while fighting enemies.
I think this is due to the fact that I watched quite the amount of animes and are therefore very familiar with action szenes like the one described above.
I totally understand that some are saying, D&D had never over the top action outside of magical powers. Therefore, the core should be rather 'realistic' like using choke points for tactical advantage.
Others say/ask, why can't D&D be more 'wahooy'?
I say, make the core rules more 'realistic' but give us a 'wahoo' module. Now everyone is fine.
I personally would like to use the 'wahoo' module because I like it when those fighters/rangers/rogues can show off over the top stunts like jumping upwards on falling rocks while fighting enemies.
I think this is due to the fact that I watched quite the amount of animes and are therefore very familiar with action szenes like the one described above.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
I'm going to respond to this too, if that's alright.
For some people, realism contributes to the fun. To others, it detracts from it. There's nothing wrong with that.
I would, because the minutiae of combat are not the fun part of the game to me. There should be options for both of us.
Neonchameleon
Legend
Yes I did. No tactic works all the time - of course they don't. However the doorway has a failure mode - burning oil or massed archery. So does every other tactic in existance. The trick is working out when certain tactics are the ones you want to use.
n00bdragon
First Post
This is the problem. You have two people in the party playing two completely different games. Non-magicals play ye olde time meatgrinder realistic medieval combat (not really but I think a lot of people would like D&D to aspire to that goal) while magical people play "wahoo super dragon ball z fantasy adventure". It's Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit. Clearly this works for some people but for a very large portion it does not.
I really think 5e needs to make a choice. EVERYONE needs to be able to summon a horde of angels or EVERYONE must ride a BMX.
Neonchameleon
Legend
I'll take option C: The included middle.
At low tiers, Angel Summoner should be able to summon a fairy - about 6" high and armed with a sharpened knitting needle if it ever needs to fight.
At mid tier, Angel Summoner might get an angel or two. Instead of a BMX, BMX Bandit gets a motorbike with heavy duty canon. (Not thinking of any recent films).
At high tier, Angel Summoner gets to summon Angelic Hordes. BMX Bandit gets an army, a Bat-cave full of Stuff, and a whole lot of intel.
Tony Vargas
Legend
On the original topic: I think there may be a couple of staw men flailing away at eachother, here. Yes, in any edition of the game a 'fighter wall' that simply blocked access to the rest of the party (single fighter in a doorway, pair of them in a 10x10 corridor) was doing its job in protecting the rest of the party. And, yes, in classic D&D it was about the only way for a fighter to do his 'job' - and, classic D&D was all about the dungeon crawl so it was prettymuch SOP, and, at least IMEX, we got so used to monsters beating on the fighter we'd often have that happen even when there wasn't a choke point necessitating it. Even in the open field, the DM isn't far off base having animal-intelligence or enraged monsters attack whoever is nearest or hit them in melee last or whatever (that's not so unrealistic - or 'wolf pack tactics' wouldn't work for wolves IRL).
3e gave us AoOs, and the fighter's high BAB made him good at them. A feat or two, and a fighter could take several per round, trip with them, and threaten at reach. That let him hold a choke 'point' 25' across. Add a spiked chain and an enlarge potion and he could form a one-man redoubt exerting control vs enemy movement in a 50' diameter circle, potentially protecting allies huddled close to him even in the most open of open fields. Sure, there were plenty of things that rendered the fighter irrelevant in 3.5, but it wasn't impossible for a fighter to exert some very meaningful battlefield control, if you exerted your system mastery (or consulted CharOp) and built to that goal.
4e actually took away threatening reach from pole-arms and the spiked chain, and thus the fighter, but, with combat superiority and per /turn/ OAs, every fighter could hold a 15' choke 'point' pretty well, marking those who did slip by as a bonus. Marking also made the fighter (and every fighter, not just specialized builds) more consistently relevant in an open-field fight, too. But the fighter only marks what he attacks, and his close (AE) attacks are all encounters or dailies, so his ability to mark a whole mass of enemies is limited (and under the players control). And, that's not a bad thing since the fighter's AC & HPs aren't /that/ superior to other characters and getting surrounded and beaten down is still very much a bad thing - so holding that choke point remains, "realistically" a very good tactic.
What pulled 4e away from the 'doorway' fight more than fighter stickiness was increased mobility (due to doing away with the Full Attack and Full Round casting times), and the greater viability of melee combatants. There are a lot of very effective and fun melee classes in 4e, and even classes that are primarily ranged can handle melee or have powers or other tricks that work well in melee or at very close range. So, there can be an incentive to get into the room and have several party members fully participating in melee, rather than casters and archers standing back from the fighter in the doorway and making the room beyond into a beaten zone (but, if there is, it's the result of players wanting to melee in the first place). When outnumbered finding (or having the controller create) a choke-point and defending it is still a great idea, but it's not the only idea. And, depending on class mix, builds and play-style, you could still have a very traditional fighter wall or a fighter at a choke point guarding a wizard and several ranged strikers who do the real killing.
The 5e playtest may hint at a return to cater dominance, but it has three melee-capable characters out of 5, and no hint of a return to full attacks or full-round casting times. So mobility remains and the 'doorway' shouldn't be too big a 'problem' or still a strong tactical option, depending on how you look at it. Open field battles, as it stands, could turn comical, with everything running past the fighter to attack the squishies, the squishies running away and casting, and the fighter running after the monsters (que Benny Hill music), but at least no one's losing 'full attacks' to all that running around, and even a little bit of stickiness - marks or tripping or grabbing or OAs for disengaging (1e-style 'parting shots') - could moderate that.
On the "Realism" issue: Even granting that realism is desirable, it needs to be applied even-handedly and without hurting the game, as a game.
If you want a realistic world that uses medieval weapons & armor and tactics, then the impact of magic on that world will have to be pretty limited, or tactics will have changed. Just making magic 'rare' doesn't help, either, because that only makes magic-wielding characters /more/ powerful as enemies are consistently un-prepared for what they can do.
If you want a level of realism among characters, you have to bring everything, including magic, down to that level so the characters balanced and the game playable and fun for all at that level of realism. It may seem, ironically, 'unrealistic' to peg magic to any level of realism, since there's no RL magic to serve as a model, but, for that same reason, magic can be given whatever level of power and/or limitations needed to balanced it, because there is no 'realistic' standard it has to match - magic can always be defined arbitrarily.
3e gave us AoOs, and the fighter's high BAB made him good at them. A feat or two, and a fighter could take several per round, trip with them, and threaten at reach. That let him hold a choke 'point' 25' across. Add a spiked chain and an enlarge potion and he could form a one-man redoubt exerting control vs enemy movement in a 50' diameter circle, potentially protecting allies huddled close to him even in the most open of open fields. Sure, there were plenty of things that rendered the fighter irrelevant in 3.5, but it wasn't impossible for a fighter to exert some very meaningful battlefield control, if you exerted your system mastery (or consulted CharOp) and built to that goal.
4e actually took away threatening reach from pole-arms and the spiked chain, and thus the fighter, but, with combat superiority and per /turn/ OAs, every fighter could hold a 15' choke 'point' pretty well, marking those who did slip by as a bonus. Marking also made the fighter (and every fighter, not just specialized builds) more consistently relevant in an open-field fight, too. But the fighter only marks what he attacks, and his close (AE) attacks are all encounters or dailies, so his ability to mark a whole mass of enemies is limited (and under the players control). And, that's not a bad thing since the fighter's AC & HPs aren't /that/ superior to other characters and getting surrounded and beaten down is still very much a bad thing - so holding that choke point remains, "realistically" a very good tactic.
What pulled 4e away from the 'doorway' fight more than fighter stickiness was increased mobility (due to doing away with the Full Attack and Full Round casting times), and the greater viability of melee combatants. There are a lot of very effective and fun melee classes in 4e, and even classes that are primarily ranged can handle melee or have powers or other tricks that work well in melee or at very close range. So, there can be an incentive to get into the room and have several party members fully participating in melee, rather than casters and archers standing back from the fighter in the doorway and making the room beyond into a beaten zone (but, if there is, it's the result of players wanting to melee in the first place). When outnumbered finding (or having the controller create) a choke-point and defending it is still a great idea, but it's not the only idea. And, depending on class mix, builds and play-style, you could still have a very traditional fighter wall or a fighter at a choke point guarding a wizard and several ranged strikers who do the real killing.
The 5e playtest may hint at a return to cater dominance, but it has three melee-capable characters out of 5, and no hint of a return to full attacks or full-round casting times. So mobility remains and the 'doorway' shouldn't be too big a 'problem' or still a strong tactical option, depending on how you look at it. Open field battles, as it stands, could turn comical, with everything running past the fighter to attack the squishies, the squishies running away and casting, and the fighter running after the monsters (que Benny Hill music), but at least no one's losing 'full attacks' to all that running around, and even a little bit of stickiness - marks or tripping or grabbing or OAs for disengaging (1e-style 'parting shots') - could moderate that.
On the "Realism" issue: Even granting that realism is desirable, it needs to be applied even-handedly and without hurting the game, as a game.
If you want a realistic world that uses medieval weapons & armor and tactics, then the impact of magic on that world will have to be pretty limited, or tactics will have changed. Just making magic 'rare' doesn't help, either, because that only makes magic-wielding characters /more/ powerful as enemies are consistently un-prepared for what they can do.
If you want a level of realism among characters, you have to bring everything, including magic, down to that level so the characters balanced and the game playable and fun for all at that level of realism. It may seem, ironically, 'unrealistic' to peg magic to any level of realism, since there's no RL magic to serve as a model, but, for that same reason, magic can be given whatever level of power and/or limitations needed to balanced it, because there is no 'realistic' standard it has to match - magic can always be defined arbitrarily.
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Or a third, much more reasonable choice: EVERYONE does not have to be equally capable in all things; and that in different situations different characters in a party will (or will have the opportunity to) take the spotlight and run away with it.
Even just using combat examples:
A battle in a forest: the Druid and Ranger go to work.
A battle vs. undead in a crypt: cue the Cleric.
A battle vs. a charging horde of Orcs on an open field: stand back and let the Wizard light 'em up.
A battle vs. a couple of smart Giants throwing boulders: the Fighters step to the fore.
A battle vs. a band of Ninjas in town: hold out until the Thief starts backstriking them one by one.
In all these cases other will (usually) contribute what help they can, but it'll be just that: help and support.
The same by-class distinctions can be made for the exploration and interaction pillars as well.
This is, of course, all assuming people are willing to stand down and let other players/characters have their time in the spotlight. But if someone's always trying to hog it by being a jack-of-all-trades, or always has to be doing something now-now-now, or has the attention span of a chicken, those are different issues the game mechanics shouldn't even be trying to fix.
Lanefan
Similar Threads
