Tired of hearing people hate on longer battle times in strategic RPG's

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm not familiar with facing rules in 1e. What do they entail?

Bill should correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC from a really, really long time ago:

1 2 3
4 X 6
7 8 9

Consider a Fighter armed with a longsword-and-shield standing on the X facing north (up). He's presumably right-handed, and so has his shield on the left side.

Attackers from positions 1, 2, 3, or 4 roll vs. his normal AC.

An attacker in position 6 ignore his shield bonus to AC.

An attacker in position 7 ignores his dexterity bonus to AC.

Attackers in position 8 or 9 ignore both dexterity and AC bonuses.

EDIT: This really only works out that well in practice, I think, if you're using miniatures, and I'm not 100% certain how the rules handle two sword-and-boarders facing off against each other who both declare their actions to be "I circle around my opponent at strike at his rear."

 

[Dannager]

Bill should correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC from a really, really long time ago:

1 2 3
4 X 6
7 8 9

Consider a Fighter armed with a longsword-and-shield standing on the X facing north (up). He's presumably right-handed, and so has his shield on the left side.

Attackers from positions 1, 2, 3, or 4 roll vs. his normal AC.

An attacker in position 6 ignore his shield bonus to AC.

An attacker in position 7 ignores his dexterity bonus to AC.

Attackers in position 8 or 9 ignore both dexterity and AC bonuses.

EDIT: This really only works out that well in practice, I think, if you're using miniatures, and I'm not 100% certain how the rules handle two sword-and-boarders facing off against each other who both declare their actions to be "I circle around my opponent at strike at his rear."

This is very interesting stuff. Facing rules like this remind me of Battletech combat, with adjustments to the to-hit roll rather than hit locations.

 

[billd91]

Bill should correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC from a really, really long time ago:

1 2 3
4 X 6
7 8 9

Consider a Fighter armed with a longsword-and-shield standing on the X facing north (up). He's presumably right-handed, and so has his shield on the left side.

Attackers from positions 1, 2, 3, or 4 roll vs. his normal AC.

An attacker in position 6 ignore his shield bonus to AC.

An attacker in position 7 ignores his dexterity bonus to AC.

Attackers in position 8 or 9 ignore both dexterity and AC bonuses.

EDIT: This really only works out that well in practice, I think, if you're using miniatures, and I'm not 100% certain how the rules handle two sword-and-boarders facing off against each other who both declare their actions to be "I circle around my opponent at strike at his rear."

And the attacker from behind gets a blanket +2 to hit as well.
Digging up my 1e DMG:
7-9 get +2 to hit from behind, negate shield and Dex bonuses.
4 and 6 negate shield bonus
1-3 deal with the target's full AC - up to the number of attacks a shield can deflect.

If the target has a good magic shield (say +2) and a good Dex bonus (say -2), attacking from behind is equivalent to getting a +7 to hit. So positioning in 1e can be a pretty big concern.

These rules come mostly into effect in rounds in which the characters close for initial attacks or in which there are multiple combatants who can move around the target to get at vulnerable areas. Otherwise, we pretty much assume that, in a 1 on 1 fight, nobody's going to present their rear unless they can't help it (which brings in more modifiers), and given a 1 minute round that makes perfect sense.

 

[The Shaman]

As am I.

Perhaps this will help.

 

[The Shaman]

Those who remember the game as originally envisioned will see things differently.

I think it's hard for gamers who came into the hobby later to understand the degree to which we did what we could to avoid combat. With a reward system which emphasized wealth acquired over body count, the incentives were all about maximizing stealth and carefully picking battles. Exploration was about finding the good treasure and looting it with the minimum amount of risk to the adventurers.

 

[jmucchiello]

That said, I doubt quintupling the number of player-controlled characters would keep combat time down...

Generally they were shorter, though. Because there was no grid. It was very abstract.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I disagree with that one. With 1e facing rules, where you stand in relation to your target can matter quite a bit. It can mean the difference between facing an opponent with a shield bonus/dex bonus/without one/without both.

Especially if a thief was in the midst. Especially if he had a belt of storm giant strength.

Just sayin'

 

[JRRNeiklot]

And the attacker from behind gets a blanket +2 to hit as well.
Digging up my 1e DMG:
7-9 get +2 to hit from behind, negate shield and Dex bonuses.
4 and 6 negate shield bonus
1-3 deal with the target's full AC - up to the number of attacks a shield can deflect.

4 and 6 also get a +1 to hit for attacking from the flanks.

 

[Argyle King]

Depends - are you looking at top tier or lower tier. Because the strongest characters when the PHB came out are stronger than anything walking around now. Orbizards? Pre-errata Stormwardens with Infinite Blade Cascade? Even fighters have taken a few nerfs. The top tier has actually been pushed back, with the goal of getting as wide a second tier as possible.


What you describe is one level out from where I'm talking. GURPS Tactics generally are in setting up the fight rather than within the fight itself. And my 4E group is doing that quite nicely to my bandit fort - they are terrorizing rather than attacking it (38 on Intimidate at the end of a long RP setup really helped).



Which is what the 4e forced movement is meant to represent in a larger than life manner. Hell, Tide of Iron is how I fight with large shield. Covering fire isn't so strong in 4e - gun tactics aren't included.



Agreed. And on both Orcus and Gondolas.

I wasn't comparing classes, but options. For example, expertise feats versus pretty much any feat prior to them. Likewise compare fighter powers from PHB1 to Martial Power; then to Martial Power 2.

I will completely agree that Orbwizards were (they actually still can be, but it takes more work) ridiculous right out of the gate. Still, imagine a pre-errata Orbwizard with access to some of the new Mage powers which have effects hit or miss or some of the powers from Arcane Power & various other newer books. I thought one DM's I played with was going to cry when I played a wizard who had Mirror Sphere. (...on a funny side note, it lead to one encounter in which a monster swallowed itself.)
-
-

On being 'one level out' ...hmm, yes and no I think. Some of those tactics can be used during a fight as well due to how GURPS treats combat. Something like spraying fire and/or covering fire can be a big deal during a combat. That assumes guns though; even simple tactics matter a great deal and can be used.

Decisions such as fighting in formation and position still matter quite a bit. Things like which side you have your shield on matters -as does facing. Their are also things such as feints, trips, disarms, and all manner of other options (not counting the extras which are available if you choose to get extra crunchy with Martial Arts.) This are all things which (in essence) are assumed to happen within a D&D power; GURPS doesn't assume you put them together in any prepackaged way though; it gives you the pieces to do with what you will.

Both games have tactics, they simply presented in a different way. Likewise, I think each game has a certain type of tactic which it tries to highlight. This doesn't mean there are more or less tactics... just different tactics and different tactics which work or don't work. Compare the fate of a surrounded D&D PC to that of a surrounded GURPS PC. The former is probably ok; the latter is probably at least getting a serious wound.

I think the discussion about the level 4E's tactics is one which comes from a problem with terminology. I can see the point of view of people claiming D&D 4E is less tactical because what some people view as 'tactics' doesn't match up with what 4E presents as options. I know I'll probably get flak for saying this, but the best way to explain it is to say that some (not all, but some) D&D 4E tactics are more akin to the 'tactics' involved in knowing when to double up your pieces in parcheesi or knowing which Magic cards to combine to great effect. In contrast, the other games mentioned (GURPS in my case; ye olde D&D in the case of others) have tactics in the sense that I think people think of the word when looking at a battlefield or considering a greater strategy in war games - flanking manuevers, bounding, etc.

On the flip side of that, I can also see the point of view of people claiming D&D 4E is more tactical. Those other games don't spell out some of the things you can do; this might give the impression you can't do them. Likewise, there are some (I hate this word, but...) 'gamey' tactics such as pulls and pushes which are available from 4E powers. Finding combinations of the 'right cards' to reach better synergy with your own powers as well as those of the party - actually, on that note I will say I like the tactics of 4E better than those of 3rd Edition to an extent; instead of optimizing yourself, you need to work to optimize the party and work together. I think 4E does a good job of showing that a team functions better together (in most cases.)

In both of these views I should also point out that having one type of tactic doesn't mean the games also don't have the other type. As I said previously, each game simply has different things it wants to highlight. This is pretty obvious by just comparing the character sheets of each game and see what aspects of a character are presented as the defining traits of a character in the eyes of each system.
-
-

At any rate, I think it's important to be a little more specific when we say 'tactics.' In game terms, I think that can mean very different things. Especially when we're broadly talking about games in general and considering how many different approaches to games there are out there. How are we defining 'tactics' here? If we can't come to common consensus, what words can we use to progress the conversation rather than continuing to go in the same circles again?

Secondly, one of the ideas which keeps cropping up seems to be that more options equal more time; more tactics equal longer play. Why? Why is this so? What are the games in which this is not true doing right? What are they possibly doing wrong? How long is too long?

 

[Saeviomagy]

These rules come mostly into effect in rounds in which the characters close for initial attacks or in which there are multiple combatants who can move around the target to get at vulnerable areas. Otherwise, we pretty much assume that, in a 1 on 1 fight, nobody's going to present their rear unless they can't help it (which brings in more modifiers), and given a 1 minute round that makes perfect sense.

This is pretty much how I remember it too - there were all these rules for stuff, but they basically never came into play because after your triple-round for surprise, everyone left just faced everyone else unless you had a numbers advantage.

And even with surprise you typically only got the +1/2 for flanking or back attack: monsters were rarely detailed enough for you to know if they had a shield added into their ac.

In summary, I think my groups OD&D and 2eD&D combats went quickly partly because we ignored most of the rules most of the time and partly because most monsters died on the first or second hit.