jmucchiello
Hero
2. I think that's the wrong question. I like not knowing. But I also want to do everything that can speed up PbP gaming. So if knowing the monster stats helps speed the game by a few 3 day round trips, I'm all for it.
(OOC) Scourge of Daggerford (Full)
KahlessNestor
Adventurer
2. I generally think of AC, and even moreso HP, as things that should be perceptible to characters. "That orc will be hard to hit because of that plate armor" and "That orc is looking really beat up." So I guess I don't think of focus fire or targeting as too bad. After all, first rule of thumb, as mentioned before when fighting multiple opponents, is isolate and take down so you aren't fighting multiple opponents.
And I don't mind the GM rolling a save for me if I missed it, because I know it might be a bit before I get around to it again. Unless there is something missed that might help me, like the Protection from Evil in the other game. But then it really doesn't matter who rolls. The die roller doesn't know or care, as long as the numbers are right.
And I don't mind the GM rolling a save for me if I missed it, because I know it might be a bit before I get around to it again. Unless there is something missed that might help me, like the Protection from Evil in the other game. But then it really doesn't matter who rolls. The die roller doesn't know or care, as long as the numbers are right.
jmucchiello
Hero
I only expect 1st level characters to fail to understand "focus fire", as you put it. Once you have a few fights under you belt, you can't help but know that reducing the number of enemies is the best way to turn the fight in your favor.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
My problem with focus fire is from a story perspective (and only when people get carried away with it):
Focus fire is tactically sound only because of the weirdness of HP, where you 'know' you have to whittle-down enemies. It can do really strange things, IMO, to the story of a fight. We're not talking about large-scale battles where it's good to try to (for example) punch your way through the enemy lines (where 'focussed assault' makes sense) we're talking more like a street-rumble, where you tend to have numbers like six-on-eight.
If everyone on one side all goes for the "guy in the black leather jacket" not only would they all trip over each other to get at him, but they'd be leaving seven other guys to kill them from the back and sides. In a street-fight, while you don't need to exactly "pick your partner" you need to come as close as you can to doing that, or you or your friend is gonna get destroyed. That's why I don't like focussed fire. I don't mind it happening a bit but in very tactical-minded players it gets out of hand.
You guys usually do fine for what I prefer - some smart focussed fire then pick-your-partner mix. I guess I prefer an elegant mix of both.
I absolutely agree with Kahless regarding PCs being able to tell a bad guys AC & HP. I don't think an experienced combatant is going to have too much trouble knowing "He's hard to get at" and "I'm going to win this soon". They may not talk or think about things in the same terms as the game-rules, but they know about what they represent. I don't have a problem with the Players knowing. Never have.
Focus fire is tactically sound only because of the weirdness of HP, where you 'know' you have to whittle-down enemies. It can do really strange things, IMO, to the story of a fight. We're not talking about large-scale battles where it's good to try to (for example) punch your way through the enemy lines (where 'focussed assault' makes sense) we're talking more like a street-rumble, where you tend to have numbers like six-on-eight.
If everyone on one side all goes for the "guy in the black leather jacket" not only would they all trip over each other to get at him, but they'd be leaving seven other guys to kill them from the back and sides. In a street-fight, while you don't need to exactly "pick your partner" you need to come as close as you can to doing that, or you or your friend is gonna get destroyed. That's why I don't like focussed fire. I don't mind it happening a bit but in very tactical-minded players it gets out of hand.
You guys usually do fine for what I prefer - some smart focussed fire then pick-your-partner mix. I guess I prefer an elegant mix of both.
I absolutely agree with Kahless regarding PCs being able to tell a bad guys AC & HP. I don't think an experienced combatant is going to have too much trouble knowing "He's hard to get at" and "I'm going to win this soon". They may not talk or think about things in the same terms as the game-rules, but they know about what they represent. I don't have a problem with the Players knowing. Never have.
I played with same living world 'rules' - I like it in 4e.
It is not as relevant in 5e, there is much less forced movements and status effects...and it gives advantage to the players - if you know that big bad has only 3hp, you can go with low area damage rather than one focused blast for lot of damage.
Thus, I would give AC and attack (for to hit and opportunity attacks) and just general status: unharmed, wounded, bloodied (<50%), critical/tottering (<10% hp) - but that might be too much administration
- we have total damage taken in status blocks
It is not as relevant in 5e, there is much less forced movements and status effects...and it gives advantage to the players - if you know that big bad has only 3hp, you can go with low area damage rather than one focused blast for lot of damage.
Thus, I would give AC and attack (for to hit and opportunity attacks) and just general status: unharmed, wounded, bloodied (<50%), critical/tottering (<10% hp) - but that might be too much administration
- we have total damage taken in status blocks
gargoyleking
Adventurer
As for initiative, I'd love to sort out a kind of FFT style system at some point where a character with high 'spd' can act a bit more often than a character with low 'spd'. Of course, balancing a system like that can be tricky. Not to mention the logistics behind it.
Neurotic
I plan on living forever. Or die trying.
You could "balance" it by having number of "parts" in the round say 10
Then your speed becomes 1/10 (you act in each segment), 4/10 (you act 2 times in the first round, 3 times in the second at segments 4, 8, 2, 6 ,10) etc...but that becomes an arms race where having faster speed is advantage over any other consideration
Then your speed becomes 1/10 (you act in each segment), 4/10 (you act 2 times in the first round, 3 times in the second at segments 4, 8, 2, 6 ,10) etc...but that becomes an arms race where having faster speed is advantage over any other consideration
FitzTheRuke
Legend
I should someday introduce you all to Rampant Griffon (an RPG I wrote 20 years ago, that we played for over a decade at my store). It's got "12-bit" rounds, and a "bit-timer" (at the table, it's a cardboard clock with the long hand counting "bits" and the short hand counting rounds). Every action has a speed (in bits, you see). You're always allowed to do actions that go over (if you start at, say, 11, and do a 6-bit action) but then you have less time next round. (Once you pass 12, your turn is done). Of course, you roll for defending in that game as much as you roll for attacking (and defending takes time too... a character that isn't attacked can do more things in a round). Combat in that game was extremely cinematic.
...But this is getting way, way beyond the scope of this game.
Similar Threads
