Can a combat system be based on marching order?

[Frostmarrow]

What if the basic rules drop the 5' grid and base combat around marching order? Would that be an acceptable abstraction?

For example: Swords can only be used from in the front ranks, healing can only be performed on characters next to the healer, and bows can only be used from the rear ranks.

Any ideas what it could look like?

 

[twistnack]

It's an interesting option and it leaves the door open for a 4e style defender mechanic for those that want one.

 

[Frostmarrow]

It's an interesting option and it leaves the door open for a 4e style defender mechanic for those that want one.

Yes, and imagine the fun when the rogue is forced up point when doors need to be opened. "The last skeleton actually ate my picks. Seriously."

Marching order could also be used as initiative.

Monsters can be wired to attack certain positions. Maybe brutes and soldiers attack up front while lurkers attack the rear.

 

[hanez]

Its interesting, I often have trouble making marching order relevant to players. They always wanna be first in the room to get the treasure and see whats going on but they also always wanna be the last to be hit, targetted or have a trap spring on them. Itd be an interesting way for players to make a cost benefit decisions in game....... and its one less roll and one more choice for players.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Its interesting, I often have trouble making marching order relevant to players. They always wanna be first in the room to get the treasure and see whats going on but they also always wanna be the last to be hit, targetted or have a trap spring on them. Itd be an interesting way for players to make a cost benefit decisions in game....... and its one less roll and one more choice for players.

Also, consider the ramifications if the first guy falls. Now everyone is in the wrong position. Weapons need to be changed, soft targets are now vulnerable, and panic spreads. It makes combats that have already been won exciting again.

 

[hanez]

Also, consider the ramifications if the first guy falls. Now everyone is in the wrong position. Weapons need to be changed, soft targets are now vulnerable, and panic spreads. It makes combats that have already been won exciting again.

I'm not so sure about spreading it too much beyond inititive. Many people use grids, or maps with x's on it, and many other people use verbal descriptions of minis (the difference being that the grids are used for gamers that demand more precise tactics.)

I don't see for the need for an official third way of considering combat tactics... If you want to be really strategic and get all war hammery, then gets some tiles and minis, if you want battle to be more imaginative and spontaneous use words, ticks on papers and descriptions.

Still interesting idea.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think it's too gamist to appeal to a great many. You'd just hear complaints about how 5e is too videogamey, as this was a significant mechanic seen in the early Final Fantasy games.

As an optional system I suppose it might appeal to some.

I think a bonus to initiative based on marching order could definitely work though... it's always been a frustration that fighters aren't often high in the order.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm not so sure about spreading it too much beyond inititive. Many people use grids, or maps with x's on it, and many other people use verbal descriptions of minis (the difference being that the grids are used for gamers that demand more precise tactics.)

I don't see for the need for an official third way of considering combat tactics... If you want to be really strategic and get all war hammery, then gets some tiles and minis, if you want battle to be more imaginative and spontaneous use words, ticks on papers and descriptions.

Still interesting idea.

I'm regarding this as giving the players a tangiable decision that is in reality pretty abstract. We (my group) always present a marching order to the DM regardless if we use abstract or gridbased combat. I just hadn't thought of using the marching order as the cornerstone for tactical yet abstract combat.

It might be redundant, though. That's why I invite you to help me explore the possibilities.

Death Angel Space Hulk is a card game that deals with combat in marching order. But in that game the genestealers always attack the flanks. It's pretty neat.

 

[mmadsen]

What if the basic rules drop the 5' grid and base combat around marching order?

The One Ring, the latest Lord of the Rings RPG, does something similar, with players choosing a "stance" for their character, representing whether they're standing back or in the vanguard.

Really though, it's not locating characters on the map that complicates things; it's "fiddly" rules that make precise grid locations important that complicate things.

For instance, if you play a 3E-style game, but you don't give 5' steps their immunity to Attacks of Opportunity, the game plays like old-school D&D: whoever has a pole-arm attacks first; if there's room, you can try to run past the front line, but you'll give up a free attack; if you turn to run, you give up a free attack; etc.

 

[kmdietri]

Reminds me a bit like the old videogame Dungeon Master. I think you had two ranks of two in that.

Personally I very much like the grid for combat but it might work for some people.