Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Back to the doorway?
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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5978664" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>While it may not be fun for you, can you at least leave room for people that find "more realistic" fights as more fun than "epic cartoon fantasy" fights?</p><p></p><p>To many people, using the world in intuitive ways makes for a fun game (it adds to their immersion, lets them act in a reliable world, etc.). So, using a chokepoint to slow enemy progress and limit their advance and your own danger <em>is fun</em>, not "dull and uninteresting."</p><p></p><p>Again, it's cool if you don't like it, but can't you see that "more realistic" is more fun to a lot of people, for various reasons?</p><p></p><p>No, it shouldn't. It shouldn't force it the other way, either. I think this issue already got nailed, though: it boils down to the CaW vs. CaS argument. The best way to make both sides happy is probably to give "good" advice on encounter design: if you want your party not to use doorways every time, give them a reason to act differently. That is, make damaging terrain in the center of the room that they'd need to push enemies into, or maybe the enemies will knock a table over and fire arrows/throw spears (so you need to plow past the fortification and get to them, in the center of the room), or whatever.</p><p></p><p>But, it makes sense to use doorways, and it should make sense in-game, too. Why wouldn't it? Of course, the enemies could always not engage them, content to throw oil/light it on fire, move out of line of sight, go for reinforcements, set off traps, or whatever. If they don't have these things available to them, then it makes sense for the party to exploit their weaknesses, much as they'd use fire against creatures with vulnerability to fire. And, if you don't like their weaknesses being exploited, it's back to CaW vs. CaS, and you should make sure encounters encourage open-field fighting.</p><p></p><p>At least, that's my take on it. I don't think there's a good way to get around the doorway issue. You can give your Fighter a Whirlwind Attack ability, but if the party decides that staying in the doorway is better for resource management (through saving HP that would be lost from open-field fighting), then they're just going to stay in the doorway anyways (unless there's a reason not to, such as saving hostages, escaping quickly, using terrain, etc.). As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5978664, member: 6668292"] While it may not be fun for you, can you at least leave room for people that find "more realistic" fights as more fun than "epic cartoon fantasy" fights? To many people, using the world in intuitive ways makes for a fun game (it adds to their immersion, lets them act in a reliable world, etc.). So, using a chokepoint to slow enemy progress and limit their advance and your own danger [I]is fun[/I], not "dull and uninteresting." Again, it's cool if you don't like it, but can't you see that "more realistic" is more fun to a lot of people, for various reasons? No, it shouldn't. It shouldn't force it the other way, either. I think this issue already got nailed, though: it boils down to the CaW vs. CaS argument. The best way to make both sides happy is probably to give "good" advice on encounter design: if you want your party not to use doorways every time, give them a reason to act differently. That is, make damaging terrain in the center of the room that they'd need to push enemies into, or maybe the enemies will knock a table over and fire arrows/throw spears (so you need to plow past the fortification and get to them, in the center of the room), or whatever. But, it makes sense to use doorways, and it should make sense in-game, too. Why wouldn't it? Of course, the enemies could always not engage them, content to throw oil/light it on fire, move out of line of sight, go for reinforcements, set off traps, or whatever. If they don't have these things available to them, then it makes sense for the party to exploit their weaknesses, much as they'd use fire against creatures with vulnerability to fire. And, if you don't like their weaknesses being exploited, it's back to CaW vs. CaS, and you should make sure encounters encourage open-field fighting. At least, that's my take on it. I don't think there's a good way to get around the doorway issue. You can give your Fighter a Whirlwind Attack ability, but if the party decides that staying in the doorway is better for resource management (through saving HP that would be lost from open-field fighting), then they're just going to stay in the doorway anyways (unless there's a reason not to, such as saving hostages, escaping quickly, using terrain, etc.). As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Back to the doorway?
Top