Back to the doorway?

[Aenghus]

One of the major issues I liked about 4e was the move away from static doorway fights. In 3e and before the only way of holding a battle line was bottlenecks such as doorways and corridors, especially for front-line types. Fighting in an open space was close to suicide for everyone as the frontliners risked being surrounded, and a single monster could circle and beat up one of the squishier PCs. And the full attack mechanic made for a very static battle style of five foot stepping to victory.

4e made for bigger, more mobile fights, with tougher PCs, marking mechanics and other features that pulled combat encounters out of the doorways and gave reasons for mobile fights.

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.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Well, one might suggest that in reality battlelines are seldom held by one man at the front in an open field. I certainly like Fighters being a little sticky, but I think that more robust characters contributed more to the dynamics than this. Wizards and Rogues could go wander into the frey without worry of dying from a lucky hit.

Obviously this is a playtest, I think we'll see a little stickiness added optionally to the fighter, but sometimes a good old fashioned doorway fight is right for an encounter!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I haven't really followed the discussions on this,b ut the "Combat as War" and "Combat as Sport" mentalities may come to shine here. 4E did embrace stuff that looked pretty awesome on the table, but is not really "realistic"/"believable" - like having a Fighter rush off to challenge as many opponents as he can so they don't attack the Wizard or Rogue.

The "door" combat scenario is the more realistic take to this - the Fighter still protects the Rogue or Wizard, but he does so by minimizing attacks directed against him, using terrain. It's something you may attempt in a "real" fight. The 4E Fighter has more hit points and more healing surges and a few powers that reduce or mitigate damage, thus he can afford doing such things, and he also has several abilities that make it more advantageous to do something that seems ... suicidal sometimes.

"real" and "realistic" all in a fantasy context that still allows unreal things like Dragons, Orcs amd spells.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Open terrain favors mobility and greater numbers. Historically, choke points served well against greater numbers. Quite often, the PCs find themselves outnumbered, fighting a more maneuverable foe, or both.

The answer to this from smart players is of course:

THIS ......IS.......SPARTA!!!!!!!!

 

[Ahnehnois]

So tactics (i.e. funneling enemies into a controlled space rather than getting yourself surrounded, hiding weak characters behind obstacles so they don't get attacked) are bad?

I don't think there was ever a problem with static combat options, unless the scenario in which the combat took place was also static. I find it rather unusual that there is a doorway to work with. Characters could stand to have more diverse options for attacking and active defense, but not at the expense of acknowledging the in-game reality of the situation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mustrum has the right of it, I think: choke points are good strategy, and a game that doesn't encourage their use in combat isn't encouraging "realistic" strategy, which helps undermine the believability of the world.

However, I don't think we'll be entirely doomed to static encounters. The designers have talked a bit about how they might implement forced movement in 5e, and though the current playtest doesn't feature it, I wouldn't be astonished if the next one does. A fighter who is pulled from the door by an enemy with a whip or pushed out by an enemy with a hammer or whatever might find the calculus changing pretty fast. Early editions didn't feature much forced movement, so it'll be interesting to see how it meshes up with 5e's overall older-school approach.

 

[KidSnide]

I had a lot of fun with 4e combat, but I certainly saw more than a fair share of static doorway fights in 4e as well.

In my experience, an excess of static doorway fights is usually a symptom of a poorly thought out dungeon. If all the monsters are in rooms with doorways and monsters conveniently come right at the PCs, then the PCs will hunker down in a doorway and wait for them.

All you need to do to stop that is to vary up the NPC tactics. If the monsters are willing to turn over a table and snipe at the PCs while some of them run for help and/or try to flank the PCs, then the PCs have a reason to rush into the room. There's nothing wrong with a good doorway fight now and then. You just don't want every encounter to turn out that way.

-KS

 

[Minigiant]

The problem is reality.

A fight between two sides with no rules to stop them is chaos. D&D has a romantic view of it all.

But the truth is that an orc or two will get around the fighter and gank the wizard.

If we don't like it, there must be rules and mechanics that discourage it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

One of the major issues I liked about 4e was the move away from static doorway fights. In 3e and before the only way of holding a battle line was bottlenecks such as doorways and corridors, especially for front-line types. Fighting in an open space was close to suicide for everyone as the frontliners risked being surrounded, and a single monster could circle and beat up one of the squishier PCs. And the full attack mechanic made for a very static battle style of five foot stepping to victory.

4e made for bigger, more mobile fights, with tougher PCs, marking mechanics and other features that pulled combat encounters out of the doorways and gave reasons for mobile fights.

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.

Originally posted by 1E DMG:

"Who Attacks Whom": As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simple use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent. If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat.

You can break off combat in two ways: Fleeing, which gives all opponents a free attack, and faling back in which you back away from your opponent, but do nothing else. Opponents not otherwised engaged are free to follow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So tactics (i.e. funneling enemies into a controlled space rather than getting yourself surrounded, hiding weak characters behind obstacles so they don't get attacked) are bad?

Nope. Tactics are good. 4e is very tactics heavy. It's just with different conditions, different tactics are good ones. Funnelling the enemies almost always works - but sometimes the fighter wants to get surrounded and come out with a sweeping blow (or whirlwind attack). The wizard still wants to avoid the front lines unless they have a melee spell to drop.

Mustrum has the right of it, I think: choke points are good strategy, and a game that doesn't encourage their use in combat isn't encouraging "realistic" strategy, which helps undermine the believability of the world.

The thing is choke points work. If the enemy are melee only forcing them into a choke point is very effective. But other things work too. If the best solution was always choke points, things would get repetative fast. Instead it's normally a mix of "Funnel the warriors and melee the archers. And use the terrain. And AoE where you can." With the toughening of PCs, beating up the squishy archers in hand to hand (almost halving their damage while you are at it) is often worth it even if it leaves opportunities for their warriors to attack your wizard. Sometimes it isn't worth it and that gets really messy.