Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sir Brennen" data-source="post: 8551281" data-attributes="member: 553">That's ... very close to replicating 1E's turn order.It's complex enough that you probably want to do some playtesting. For example, I think you'll see a lot more archer rogues since they'd always get sneak attack first in a round (provided favorable conditions, like a melee buddy next to the target.) Also, sneak attack is balanced against fighter features like Extra Attack, so the former could still do early round &quot;insta-kills&quot; while the latter might make individual attacks feel more underwhelming if they're spaced out.Overall, though, the big &quot;Nope&quot; for me is the pre-turn declarations. The ability to decide what you're going to do on your turn based on the current battle conditions, not what they were at the start of the round, is what actually makes for more tactical play IMO. And without declared actions, the rest of the proposal falls apart.If you're really interested in tactical fantasy combat, I recommend checking out <a href="https://thefantasytrip.game/" target="_blank">The Fantasy Trip</a> (TFT). It was written explicitly in response to what the author saw as the lack of that type of combat in D&amp;D 1E. The turn order is very similar to what you're proposing but has the advantage of already having decades of play. I played it alongside D&amp;D in the 80's and took part in the Kickstarter a couple years ago for the new edition, because sometimes I do like more tactical RPGs.TFT started as a couple of &quot;micro-games&quot; - Melee and Wizard. The Melee game presents the base combat system for TFT, presented as an arena duel game. It's <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/306835/The-Fantasy-Trip-Melee" target="_blank">available for free in PDF</a> if you want to check it out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sir Brennen, post: 8551281, member: 553"] That's ... very close to replicating 1E's turn order. It's complex enough that you probably want to do some playtesting. For example, I think you'll see a lot more archer rogues since they'd always get sneak attack first in a round (provided favorable conditions, like a melee buddy next to the target.) Also, sneak attack is balanced against fighter features like Extra Attack, so the former could still do early round "insta-kills" while the latter might make individual attacks feel more underwhelming if they're spaced out. Overall, though, the big "Nope" for me is the pre-turn declarations. The ability to decide what you're going to do on your turn based on the current battle conditions, not what they were at the start of the round, is what actually makes for more tactical play IMO. And without declared actions, the rest of the proposal falls apart. If you're really interested in tactical fantasy combat, I recommend checking out [URL='https://thefantasytrip.game/']The Fantasy Trip[/URL] (TFT). It was written explicitly in response to what the author saw as the lack of that type of combat in D&D 1E. The turn order is very similar to what you're proposing but has the advantage of already having decades of play. I played it alongside D&D in the 80's and took part in the Kickstarter a couple years ago for the new edition, because sometimes I[B][I] do [/I][/B]like more tactical RPGs. TFT started as a couple of "micro-games" - Melee and Wizard. The Melee game presents the base combat system for TFT, presented as an arena duel game. It's [URL='https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/306835/The-Fantasy-Trip-Melee']available for free in PDF[/URL] if you want to check it out. [/QUOTE]

Verification