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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Adopting play for Combat Strategy
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6994345" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>First, this isn't a ruling; this is a rule. And, it is ennobled by becoming a rule rather than a ruling, because as a rule its application is repeatable. (Likewise, by being repeatable and predictable in application, we know it to be a rule.) You even say for yourself, "Like all my "house rules', these were documented and put in the house rule manual for players viewing after they were used and formulated." I know it is fashionable to call the rules at ones table 'rulings', as if ruling were superior to mere rules, but I'm not much a follower of fashion. Call this what it is (with pride) - a house rule. There is nothing especially admirable about 'rulings'. Indeed, bravo sir on converting mere rulings into a formal rules manual perusable by players and subject to discussion and even correction.</p><p></p><p>Second, absolutely I have done this sort of thing, and as early as 1e, and probably for much the same reasons you did. For me, I was impelled by the distinction in the 1e DMG between light and heavy infantry, and by the parallel distinction in Battlesystem. I wanted to know what it was - what skill or proficiency - distinguished the two and how long it took to train light infantry up to the discipline of heavy infantry. Also, at the time, I was still largely locked in the Gygaxian demographic model of most all NPCs - including soldiers - being 0th level. I wanted to know what maneuvers distinguished truly elite soldiers from their opponents if not their HD. This inspired the idea of shield walls as cover rules, and gaining bonuses in the attack owing to the weight of the formation. My rules were in flux right up until I gave up on 1e as a bad cause, thinking I could leverage some more realistic system to achieve the results I wanted.</p><p></p><p>I've seen a lot of similar rules over the years. They show up for example as a 'ruling' in the module 'Axe of the Dwarven Lords'. I call the idea in them a ruling rather than a rule, because it seems in the module to mostly exist as a DM tool for his pet NPCs with no expectation that PC's should even know that it is going on much less adopt the tactics for themselves. I also seem to remember an article in Dragon Magazine that had similar concepts and was one of the earlier forerunners of the 3e era concept of 'feats'. </p><p></p><p>My current rule set in based of 3.0e, and translates some of my ideas (and some new ones) from earlier editions into 3e by leveraging the Feat system and the skill system by creating a new skill - Tactics - that allows among other things making a check to fight effectively in formations. The system is too complex to cover in any depth here, but I think the general idea can be conveyed by showing a feat:</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">HEAVY INFANTRY </span>[GENERAL, FIGHTER]</p><p>You are trained to perform as heavy infanty.</p><p><strong>Prerequisite:</strong> Tactics 4 Ranks, Base attack bonus +1</p><p><strong>Benefits:</strong> You are capable of performing the following tactics.</p><p><em>Legionaire:</em> When formed in a shield wall, you gain a +2 bonus on reflex saves against spells or spell-like effects, and you are treated as possessing <em>evasion</em>. (If exposed to any effect which allows a reflex save for half damage, on a successful save the character takes no damage.)</p><p><em>Professional:</em> You can take 10 on a tactics skill checks to fight in Close Formation, Fight in Ranks, Form a Phalanx, or Form a Shield Wall regardless of distractions.</p><p><em>Weight of the Formation:</em> You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to hit for each rank of heavy infantry formed up behind you, to a maximum of a +3 bonus.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I very much oppose "Tucker's Kobolds" or "Skip's Goblins" and the general impulse to want to impress on players just how tough the weakest monsters in the game are. As a DM, one should always be on guard against one's ego getting in the way of their neutrality. If kobolds, goblins, or orcs don't go down hard to the heroes, how are they to know they've become heroes?</p><p></p><p>That said, 1e heavily punished isolated PCs being surrounded far more than any other edition I'm aware of (except perhaps mine). If an isolated PC was surrounded by orcs in 1e, he'd likely be in trouble, as 1e had complex facing rules that determined whether you could get the bonus from your shield and defend against attacks from your rear. Putting ones back up against a wall however meant that a mid-level fighter could slay orcs by the score. My own rules hybridize 3e's 'flanking' concept with 1e's 'facing' concept, by adding two new conditions 'encircled' and 'surrounded' that grant increasingly high advantage to the attacker. In my game, you definitely do not want to be 'surrounded' by foes having the Teamwork feat (such as by wolves or well trained infantry). As long as you don't take to extreme the idea of mooks taking on heroes using clever tactics, I'm on board. It's good to be able to have foes that 'stay' with the PC's, so that they have meaningful encounters with the same sort of foe at 1st level and again for many levels. Fifth edition seems to have that idea in spades, and is one of the things I like about it. But if mooks begin to enjoy outsized advantages that could not be enjoyed by the PC's (especially PC's of equivalent level), then I start to look at it askew. </p><p></p><p>That being said, I enjoy being able to craft 'mere' 1st level or 3rd level fighters with combinations of feats and 'mass' (to use the military term) to threaten PC's of considerably higher level than is expected, and I enjoy playing with the wargamish ideas in my head of how the different sorts of training and doctrine different cultures in my game might have (Heavy Infantry + Skill Focus (Tactics), Assault Trooper + Reckless Charge, Teamwork + Pack Tactics, Skirmisher + Point Blank Shot, etc.) might play out. I've long wanted to take the time to turn my RPG rules into a mass combat system, but alas, I've never had the time.</p><p></p><p>I'm also reminded how much tactical interest could be generated by the morale rules of 2e or BECMI. I found them however more suited to a war game than an RPG, as they made combat far too swingy and encounter design far too difficult. If morale collapsed, the PC's could rout vastly larger forces than themselves, multiplying their already considerable strength. But if morale did not collapse, this meant the PC's were facing vastly larger forces than you'd normally oppose characters of that level with. While I am all for naturalism in an RPG and think you can easily go too far in making everything balanced (the 'zones' of World of Warcraft ported to a PnP RPG), there is something to be said for balanced, tense encounters in encounter design. Morale makes that next to impossible, because it steals actions in mass from the NPCs but generally does not steal any from the PCs. This makes it more interesting to me as a system governing encounters between NPCs, and leave whether foes flee the PCs more up to 'rulings' rather than rules. Still, like facing, weapon versus armor bonuses, and casting time, it's one of those old school rules I'm tempted to bring back. I don't though, because somewhere along the line, I realized there is only so much complexity a system can have before it gets too fiddly to use in play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6994345, member: 4937"] First, this isn't a ruling; this is a rule. And, it is ennobled by becoming a rule rather than a ruling, because as a rule its application is repeatable. (Likewise, by being repeatable and predictable in application, we know it to be a rule.) You even say for yourself, "Like all my "house rules', these were documented and put in the house rule manual for players viewing after they were used and formulated." I know it is fashionable to call the rules at ones table 'rulings', as if ruling were superior to mere rules, but I'm not much a follower of fashion. Call this what it is (with pride) - a house rule. There is nothing especially admirable about 'rulings'. Indeed, bravo sir on converting mere rulings into a formal rules manual perusable by players and subject to discussion and even correction. Second, absolutely I have done this sort of thing, and as early as 1e, and probably for much the same reasons you did. For me, I was impelled by the distinction in the 1e DMG between light and heavy infantry, and by the parallel distinction in Battlesystem. I wanted to know what it was - what skill or proficiency - distinguished the two and how long it took to train light infantry up to the discipline of heavy infantry. Also, at the time, I was still largely locked in the Gygaxian demographic model of most all NPCs - including soldiers - being 0th level. I wanted to know what maneuvers distinguished truly elite soldiers from their opponents if not their HD. This inspired the idea of shield walls as cover rules, and gaining bonuses in the attack owing to the weight of the formation. My rules were in flux right up until I gave up on 1e as a bad cause, thinking I could leverage some more realistic system to achieve the results I wanted. I've seen a lot of similar rules over the years. They show up for example as a 'ruling' in the module 'Axe of the Dwarven Lords'. I call the idea in them a ruling rather than a rule, because it seems in the module to mostly exist as a DM tool for his pet NPCs with no expectation that PC's should even know that it is going on much less adopt the tactics for themselves. I also seem to remember an article in Dragon Magazine that had similar concepts and was one of the earlier forerunners of the 3e era concept of 'feats'. My current rule set in based of 3.0e, and translates some of my ideas (and some new ones) from earlier editions into 3e by leveraging the Feat system and the skill system by creating a new skill - Tactics - that allows among other things making a check to fight effectively in formations. The system is too complex to cover in any depth here, but I think the general idea can be conveyed by showing a feat: [SIZE=3]HEAVY INFANTRY [/SIZE][GENERAL, FIGHTER] You are trained to perform as heavy infanty. [B]Prerequisite:[/B] Tactics 4 Ranks, Base attack bonus +1 [B]Benefits:[/B] You are capable of performing the following tactics. [I]Legionaire:[/I] When formed in a shield wall, you gain a +2 bonus on reflex saves against spells or spell-like effects, and you are treated as possessing [I]evasion[/I]. (If exposed to any effect which allows a reflex save for half damage, on a successful save the character takes no damage.) [I]Professional:[/I] You can take 10 on a tactics skill checks to fight in Close Formation, Fight in Ranks, Form a Phalanx, or Form a Shield Wall regardless of distractions. [I]Weight of the Formation:[/I] You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to hit for each rank of heavy infantry formed up behind you, to a maximum of a +3 bonus. I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. I very much oppose "Tucker's Kobolds" or "Skip's Goblins" and the general impulse to want to impress on players just how tough the weakest monsters in the game are. As a DM, one should always be on guard against one's ego getting in the way of their neutrality. If kobolds, goblins, or orcs don't go down hard to the heroes, how are they to know they've become heroes? That said, 1e heavily punished isolated PCs being surrounded far more than any other edition I'm aware of (except perhaps mine). If an isolated PC was surrounded by orcs in 1e, he'd likely be in trouble, as 1e had complex facing rules that determined whether you could get the bonus from your shield and defend against attacks from your rear. Putting ones back up against a wall however meant that a mid-level fighter could slay orcs by the score. My own rules hybridize 3e's 'flanking' concept with 1e's 'facing' concept, by adding two new conditions 'encircled' and 'surrounded' that grant increasingly high advantage to the attacker. In my game, you definitely do not want to be 'surrounded' by foes having the Teamwork feat (such as by wolves or well trained infantry). As long as you don't take to extreme the idea of mooks taking on heroes using clever tactics, I'm on board. It's good to be able to have foes that 'stay' with the PC's, so that they have meaningful encounters with the same sort of foe at 1st level and again for many levels. Fifth edition seems to have that idea in spades, and is one of the things I like about it. But if mooks begin to enjoy outsized advantages that could not be enjoyed by the PC's (especially PC's of equivalent level), then I start to look at it askew. That being said, I enjoy being able to craft 'mere' 1st level or 3rd level fighters with combinations of feats and 'mass' (to use the military term) to threaten PC's of considerably higher level than is expected, and I enjoy playing with the wargamish ideas in my head of how the different sorts of training and doctrine different cultures in my game might have (Heavy Infantry + Skill Focus (Tactics), Assault Trooper + Reckless Charge, Teamwork + Pack Tactics, Skirmisher + Point Blank Shot, etc.) might play out. I've long wanted to take the time to turn my RPG rules into a mass combat system, but alas, I've never had the time. I'm also reminded how much tactical interest could be generated by the morale rules of 2e or BECMI. I found them however more suited to a war game than an RPG, as they made combat far too swingy and encounter design far too difficult. If morale collapsed, the PC's could rout vastly larger forces than themselves, multiplying their already considerable strength. But if morale did not collapse, this meant the PC's were facing vastly larger forces than you'd normally oppose characters of that level with. While I am all for naturalism in an RPG and think you can easily go too far in making everything balanced (the 'zones' of World of Warcraft ported to a PnP RPG), there is something to be said for balanced, tense encounters in encounter design. Morale makes that next to impossible, because it steals actions in mass from the NPCs but generally does not steal any from the PCs. This makes it more interesting to me as a system governing encounters between NPCs, and leave whether foes flee the PCs more up to 'rulings' rather than rules. Still, like facing, weapon versus armor bonuses, and casting time, it's one of those old school rules I'm tempted to bring back. I don't though, because somewhere along the line, I realized there is only so much complexity a system can have before it gets too fiddly to use in play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Adopting play for Combat Strategy
Top