|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 1:39PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Wizards were never meant to stand and take a beating at low levels. This demonstrates just how the direction of the game over the last few years seems to have progressed (with a healthy dose of MMO "realism" thrown in). Examples such as scout your enemies, have your group set traps, use your dagger or staff and use spells sparingly when up against organized opponents but maybe unleashing the big ones for the rabble. Also, and this to me is a DM-issue, you shouldn't "get aggro" from casting spells. Sure monsters are smart, they can react and plan as well, but it shouldn't be "Wizard casts powerful spell now all monsters attack you" unless they're being directed by a leader for example. It's an early playtest, think outside the box, your party needs to recognize that obviously you're not built to take a beating so plan around that. just a few ideas that I've seen my players use over the years playing 1e/2e.
You are, simply put, a horrendous metagamer. Day 1, lesson 1 at every boot camp, training yard, and orc cave in every DnD world is "kill the mage first".
You are, simply put, an angry little forum warrior, aren't you? Maybe in your world Day 1, Less 1 at every boot camp...blah blah blah..since when did all orcs go to boot camp? And when did you you have the power to be omniscient in every D&D world? I've been playing this for over 30 years and I can assure you that orcs, with a leader will go after the weakest party members, I even said that. However, when there's more of a rabble group, maybe they won't they first time they get blasted but if they survive they certainly will. To be so binary in your assumptions shows your weakness of imagination. Move along....nothing to see here.
Maybe he was complimenting you by telling you that you're bad at metagaming?
Also, to follow up on your point about boot camp: his point also assumes that orcs spend enough time fighting PC-races and especially magic users that they've developed specific philosophies about it. In most of my campaign worlds, orcs mostly fight other orcs, other monstrous races, and dwarves--and none of those groups is especially magic-heavy, so there's no reason for any particular group of orcs to have a pre-set strategy about targeting magic users.
That being said, there is one well-organized band of mercenary orcs called the Stick In the Eye Tribe in my current campaign world that will happily and consistently target magic users and healers first to maximize their combat efficiency. That being said, they will also lay ambushes, employ siege weapons, build traps, and even perform infiltration (things most other monstrous races don't tend to do due to lack of organization).
In sum: having every monster automatically attack the wizard because it's the smart thing to do and "everybody learns at Age 1 that wizards need to die" is actually pretty serious metagaming.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 1:41PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2004
|
There's a problem with a game system that assumes certain things will happen in order for the game to work without including any rules or even guidance for the dm to cause those things to happen that way. The fighter is supposed to protect the wizard, but there are no rules to let the fighter do so, and nothing in the dm material says "look, monsters are supposed to willingly engage the big tough guy who's harder to hurt even if those other guys that are easier to hit can kill more of them at a time or even heal each other. Yeah, it seems dumb, but monsters are supposed to be dumb in this game or basic mechanical assumptions break down."
Necromancy: Friendship is MagicSpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 1:50PM
#93
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Wizards were never meant to stand and take a beating at low levels. This demonstrates just how the direction of the game over the last few years seems to have progressed (with a healthy dose of MMO "realism" thrown in). Examples such as scout your enemies, have your group set traps, use your dagger or staff and use spells sparingly when up against organized opponents but maybe unleashing the big ones for the rabble. Also, and this to me is a DM-issue, you shouldn't "get aggro" from casting spells. Sure monsters are smart, they can react and plan as well, but it shouldn't be "Wizard casts powerful spell now all monsters attack you" unless they're being directed by a leader for example. It's an early playtest, think outside the box, your party needs to recognize that obviously you're not built to take a beating so plan around that. just a few ideas that I've seen my players use over the years playing 1e/2e.
You are, simply put, a horrendous metagamer. Day 1, lesson 1 at every boot camp, training yard, and orc cave in every DnD world is "kill the mage first".
You are, simply put, an angry little forum warrior, aren't you? Maybe in your world Day 1, Less 1 at every boot camp...blah blah blah..since when did all orcs go to boot camp? And when did you you have the power to be omniscient in every D&D world? I've been playing this for over 30 years and I can assure you that orcs, with a leader will go after the weakest party members, I even said that. However, when there's more of a rabble group, maybe they won't they first time they get blasted but if they survive they certainly will. To be so binary in your assumptions shows your weakness of imagination. Move along....nothing to see here.
Maybe he was complimenting you by telling you that you're bad at metagaming?
Also, to follow up on your point about boot camp: his point also assumes that orcs spend enough time fighting PC-races and especially magic users that they've developed specific philosophies about it. In most of my campaign worlds, orcs mostly fight other orcs, other monstrous races, and dwarves--and none of those groups is especially magic-heavy, so there's no reason for any particular group of orcs to have a pre-set strategy about targeting magic users.
That being said, there is one well-organized band of mercenary orcs called the Stick In the Eye Tribe in my current campaign world that will happily and consistently target magic users and healers first to maximize their combat efficiency. That being said, they will also lay ambushes, employ siege weapons, build traps, and even perform infiltration (things most other monstrous races don't tend to do due to lack of organization).
In sum: having every monster automatically attack the wizard because it's the smart thing to do and "everybody learns at Age 1 that wizards need to die" is actually pretty serious metagaming.
well said, and I avoid metagaming because it means you're assuming things about your adversaries. Doing that can have disastrous consequences. If someone wants to, I'm fine with that if it makes the game more fun for them as long as it's not at the expense of other players.
in my campaign my group of players came across a very primitive looking group of orcs in the Hool Marshes. Thinking they were nothing but cavemen and needed to be exterminated they attacked only to find out that a number of them were shamans of some power with druid-like spells. Needless to say, what appeared to be a straightforward battle turned out to be quite a desperate battle. These orcs disabled the two fighters straight away by entangling their legs with roots....so I guess I'm a bad metagamer. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 5:40PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
If your answer is yes for A, then the answer is yes in every edition. Since no edition has given real tools to stop a group from doing so.
A 4e fighter, with bonuses to hit on opportunity attacks, stop movement on hit with opportunity attacks, marking on attempted opportunity attacks, and unlimited opportunity attacks, most certainly had the tools; it was arguably too good at the role. A 3e fighter without combat reflexes was less effective, but it still typically wasn't worth effectively doubling the firepower of the fighter (by giving him an extra attack per turn).
Do I have to repeat the line outside of very specialized builds in every post? I already admitted if you have a very specialized build built towards stopping movement you are somewhat successful at doing it. Still if focus firing the weak guy is a big issue all this does is delay people a turn or 2 and it only works in the narrow corridor type battles where 5e already lets you stop them by creating a formation.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 5:48PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Do I have to repeat the line outside of very specialized builds in every post?
Both of the builds I mentioned are 100% vanilla fighter builds.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 6:42PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Do I have to repeat the line outside of very specialized builds in every post?
Both of the builds I mentioned are 100% vanilla fighter builds.
Vanilla and specialized mean different things to me. Yes you oculd do them out of the main book, but they required very specific things depending on the edition. Stats, feats, classes, powers etc. If you need a high degree of system mastery to pull it off, and it impacts your capabilities in other areas and in both cases I'd say yeah it does I don't think it really matters much in this discussion. Feel free to disagree, but if I have to build my figher towards stopping enemies I don't see these editions as really stopping people from curb stomping the wizard on the whole in tha edition, especailly since you can do things to avoid the AoO and get to the wizard anyways in these editions.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 6:46PM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Vanilla and specialized mean different things to me. Yes you oculd do them out of the main book, but they required very specific things depending on the edition.
By 'vanilla' I mean 'I made no relevant choices other than picking the fighter class'.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 30, 2012 - 9:21PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2012
|
In any game system there are tactical norms that emerge as a consequence of the rules, whether they're explicitly spelled out for the players or not. "Don't split the party" is probably the most broadly applicable across RPGs, but for specific games, you see norms like "burn any book written with strange text" in Lovecraftian games, or in 2nd edition you'd see parties keep watch on their Thief to keep him from ganking them for gold (and the bonus XP that came with it). I remember the elaborate steps my group used to take to take advantage of how lightning bolts bounced off of walls; we fried several player characters pretty badly before we got the hang of it, but then it went from a frustration to part of the fun.
D&D Next may well end up with rules to make front-line melee combatants sticky, but those rules may be optional, and the games that lack them will develop their own separate norms to cope. Maybe we won't see player characters rushing into 40'x40' caverns en masse to get swarmed by kobolds and rats any more. A lot of reported problems with the playtest appear to have one key common element: people played this game as if it were supposed to be a different version of D&D.
|
|
|
