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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2817805" data-attributes="member: 22779">You can occupy an allied square, you just can't attack from it.  Besides, from a realism standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.  You gaggle up behind the door, break the door down and pile in, massacring everyone.  Otherwise, you spend the surpise round poncing around moving a bit and then go to initiatives.  I tend to reward parties that use tactics rather than just change the rules so that their tactics don't work.  Kind of like the tripping parties.  It's a great tactic, it works pretty well against certain opponents.  Just switching the rules because the party hits on a good idea seems far more cheesy to me.Not to be really snippy, but, I think this is the reason I see so many players out there with the tactical sense of a concussed gerbil.  In my opinion, there are a rather large number of DM's out there who actively screw over parties that try to use tactics, so players learn that the only thing that works is charge and power attacking greatswords.I tend to applaud players who use the rules to gain a tactical advantage - so long as its by the book and doesn't require some arcane bit of rules-lawyering to change definitions, then I'm groovy.  A party that has everyone use reach weapons?  Bloody fantastic - makes sense when nearly everything you face has reach.  A party that works together to come up with reach weapons+trip?  Even better.I'm more than adept enough at critter tactics to mop the floor with players.  My players know that I'm going to use the critters to the best of their abilities without any fudging.  I expect that they do the same.</blockquote>

Verification