Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7720456" data-attributes="member: 5100">I'm going to assume you're right, on this, because nothing else makes even marginal sense. To that I say, "3E is not the old days". It was, at best, the beginning of the modern era of D&D. On to the OP's article, though:If I understand correctly, the assertion is that having the fighters guard the wizards so that the wizards can bring their firepower to bear is the height of tactics in D&D. There might be some truth to that, in character. Out of character, when the game has a standard pattern, it shows a flaw in the design of the game. Trying to enshrine the results of that poor design as "good tactics" is a flaw of play.While there are, no doubt, certain party configurations that would be ineffective, a well designed game will allow the players great latitude in how they play. If you want a high-stealth group, then play one, but be aware that there are tactical choices that must be made. One of the most effective AD&D groups I ever DMed for had no real magic-user or cleric (some multi-class goodness that I don't fully recall). The ranger and thief were very good at sneaking past and flanking their enemies, then flushing them towards the fighters. Were there times that they were at a disadvantage because they lacked fireball or cure wounds? Oh, sure. There were also many times where they took down foes well above their weight class because they had their stuff in a pile and did a better job of scouting things out (and acting on the intel) than most wizards did, in practice.Somewhere along the way, D&D turned from a game where every class had something it could do and scarce resources were to be managed, not spent, into a game where many folks want to solve any problem of note with magic and, when the magic runs out, it's time to rest. To me, that's the opposite of tactics. It's a mindless rinse-and-repeat where neither the players nor the DM have to do much work. The players because they're going to kick in a door, shield wall, and nuke everything. The DM because all the carefully calculated encounter building tables assume that approach and deviation would wreak havoc upon the balance of the game.Now, I actually tend to think much of the problem is in the culture that was created during the 3E days where certain expectations were set. That's something that I'd expect to change (and think has) as those players shed some of that mindset. Just like some of the folks I played AD&D with, who would almost have to be told that their characters were getting tired and should probably rest, started to adapt to the 15-minute work day of 3E.So, assuming I understand the OP correctly, I'll agree that every player doing their own thing is bad tactics, but that's tautological. Is forming a shield-wall around the caster good tactics, though? If the answer is anything other than "sometimes", I'd say the poor decision making was in the selection of the game system.</blockquote>

Verification