Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2905487" data-attributes="member: 18280">As a DM, I certainly made much use out of the tactical information available in 1E -- I'm rather surprised that no one mentioned bonuses for cover and concealment.  My players certainly knew that, by picking the ground upon which you fought, you could defeat far more powerful creatures than otherwise.Consider the humble giant slug.  Because 1e had facing and absolute sizes over "squares", that slug could devastate you if you were in front of it....but if you came up behind it in a tunnel?  If you could lure it to a place of your choosing?  You could kill it with much less chance of it doing anything in return.  Of course, D&D has always assumed that the characters understand tactics better than the players.  That is why fighters, say, have such an easier time hitting things than wizards.  They know when to strike, and where.  It is also why they have so many more hit points -- they know how to minimize blows against them.  In AD&D 1e, tactics were treated rather like social skills are in 3e -- just because you don't understand them doesn't mean that your character doesn't.This is still held over in 3e, btw, or there would be a flat BAB and HP progression to go along with that flat XP progression.I am at work right now, and don't have the 1e books available, but I believe that things like flanking, choosing facing to maximize bonuses, etc., all existed -- they were just not as well codified in 1e as in 3e, and it was not assumed that those rules would come up in every combat.  As a result, combats were a lot quicker, and a lot more of a "hit point race".  Tactical decisions often dealt with what one could do within a given day, rather than within a given combat.In 3e, this has given rise to two problems.  Both are fairly easy to fix, but both occur across a fairly broad spectrum of players.The first problem is that, with so many tactical options and such importance given to choosing the "right" option, some players will agonize over decisions, slowing combats down considerably.  The easiest fixes are to set a time limit, or to resign oneself to having fewer encouners per play session.The second problem is that of the "One Combat A Day" party, who will use their resources in a single combat (or a very small number of combats), then go hide and rest -- usually using rope trick or some variation thereof.  The easiest fix is to keep track of time, and only allow the PCs the benefits of one 8-hour rest period within 24 hours.  Monsters keep moving (and searching for the PCs), treasures are hauled away, reinforcements are summoned, additional guards are posted, etc.  Or you could just role-play the waiting  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> .I third problem I see, although I don't think that it is universally (or even close to) regarded as a problem is reliance on the grid.  Sometimes it shouldn't be obvious how many creatures you are fighting, and some fights are simply not worth mapping onto the grid.  "Guys, it's just one dire rat."  Yet the combat rules in 3.X make some players feel cheated if there isn't a grid involved in just about everything.  If you find this a problem, then the easiest solution is to just say No.Overall, I'd have to say that the combat system in 3.X is worlds better than the combat systems of previous editions.  However, combat is a lot slower, and becomes the major focus of the game unless you work to prevent it from doing so.RC</blockquote>

Verification