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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5521650" data-attributes="member: 58416">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?</blockquote>

Verification