Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galethorn" data-source="post: 2131867" data-attributes="member: 7888">Other!I'm a great tactician in general, and apply lots of tactics into both my tabletop and computer gaming, but I'm terrible with the sorts of things that don't have any real-world bearing that I can identify and exploit; which is why my crappiness at a game is proportional with how detached it is from reality.For example, I try to use boom-and-zoom/hit-and-run tactics in all sorts of games, when they're the safest course of action: in flight-sims, I do it when I'm in a faster plane than the opposition; in first-person-shooters, I do it when I have a light weapon and cover; with strategy games, I do it when I have cavalry or archers with cover; in RPGsI also try to use other tried-and-true methods, like always attacking at an enemy's weakness first, trying to do the unexpected, 'divide and conquer', flanking, attacking from positions that give cover but don't give the enemy any cover, and all that good stuff.All of that said, in D&D, those sorts of things usually don't net you more than +4 to hit (from flanking), +4 to AC (from cover), and sometimes breaking up a tougher encounter into 'easy-to-chew' pieces. If you have a good DM. A lot of the time, it's just not worth the extra work when you have a Good Hope spell, a flaming weapon, or you can fly.So, as the tactical realism of an RPG goes up, my tactical skill within the game increases. Which is why I tend to do really well in low-magic/no-magic or otherwise gritty games.</blockquote>

Verification