|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 5:15PM
#11
|
|
|
I'm still of the opinion that a good "middle ground" remedy for the lack of AoO and having AoOs is simply to make any threatened square be considered "rough terrain" costing more movement to slide in and out of. This works to the benefit of both players and enemies...since both could then set up "roadblocks" and "gauntlets" to slow the other side down (thus making them easier to hunt down and attack).
If this point wasn't brought up on this thread...then it was brought up on another, and I think it's still probably one of the better possible solutions thus far.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 5:17PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2003
|
I'm still of the opinion that a good "middle ground" remedy for the lack of AoO and having AoOs is simply to make any threatened square be considered "rough terrain" costing more movement to slide in and out of. This works to the benefit of both players and enemies...since both could then set up "roadblocks" and "gauntlets" to slow the other side down (thus making them easier to hunt down and attack).
If this point wasn't brought up on this thread...then it was brought up on another, and I think it's still probably one of the better possible solutions thus far.
That is a pretty good idea.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 7:33PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Even in a relatively rules-light system like this, "you can house-rule away the problem, therefore the problem doesn't exist" is, at best, a case of not thinking clearly.
That wasn't my argument, however. May argument was simply that it logically should not happen. It's not a houserule--it's a "I'm not running this game stupid" thing.
You are talking about a 'social contract' or 'gentlemen's rules'. While that'd thematically different from a house rule, we should streamline the system so that these kinds of rules wouldn't be necessary. At least before the system is published.
Depends on the cost.
Do I think being able to move both before and after an attack is good? Yes.
Do I think lack of AoO or at least a huge reduction in how they are acivated is a good thing? Yes.
If both of those things are in the game the congo line of death is possible. On the other hand it is clearly metagaming a situation,and expecting the players/dms not to metagame if they want the game to function at peak efficiency does not seem to be that high of an expectation.
Basically is expecting a bit more from the player base too much to ask in order to keep nice things? I kind of hope not.
Obviously everyones likes might be different, and some poeple love them their AoO and rigid movement systems.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 7:51PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
The only functional difference between 3E's and 5E's 'conga line' is that it no longer takes three feats (two of which weren't very good) to do so.
But, if we need a "fix" for some reason, a skill contest of some sort to keep the other guy from wandering off seems like it would be far less convoluted than the other systems proposed. AOO would very likely still be the best answer, though.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 7:59PM
#15
|
|
|
AOO would very likely still be the best answer, though.
I could not disagree more. I hate AoOs immensely. For one, they are another thing favoring a battlemap and I unquestionably hate the battlemap and never ever want to use one. It also slows things down a great deal, not just because it involves additional attacks/rolling, but because it requires additional thought when moving and requires a much more precise picture of the situation in everyone's mind.
To me, AoOs are not worth the speed lost, especially when simply choosing not to run your game in a way that leads to a stupid situation like the conga line is the easiest and most effective solution to the conga line problem. Just because it works in the rules does not mean it works in game reality.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 8:01PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2003
|
The only functional difference between 3E's and 5E's 'conga line' is that it no longer takes three feats (two of which weren't very good) to do so.
You need those feats to prop back up the 4th wall. Otherwise the arbitrary line that distinquishes one round from the next is quite noticeable. Creatures able to ignore that line clearly have a special ability.
But, if we need a "fix" for some reason, a skill contest of some sort to keep the other guy from wandering off seems like it would be far less convoluted than the other systems proposed. AOO would very likely still be the best answer, though.
I like the idea of all adjecent squares cost an extra movement to enter or leave.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 8:27PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
For one, they are another thing favoring a battlemap and I unquestionably hate the battlemap and never ever want to use one.
Does it?
"[monster] attacks you, then backs off while another [monster] readies its [weapon]. Want to smack it around while it's retreating?"
I like the idea of all adjecent squares cost an extra movement to enter or leave.
Seems like that extra math would slow things down quite a bit, when players "huddle" and plan out a rotation.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 9:10PM
#18
|
|
|
I like the idea of all adjecent squares cost an extra movement to enter or leave.
Seems like that extra math would slow things down quite a bit, when players "huddle" and plan out a rotation.
Considering that the packet already has rules for "rough terrain" it's no more math than is already involved.
You move into a threatened square, you lose an extra 5 feet of movement. Pretty simple...and helps keep the congo-lines from being so prevalent, for players and for enemies. It also keeps somebody from charging past the fighters and blockers to attack the casters...then springing rigt back through the fighters and blockers to "safety."
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 18, 2012 - 11:29PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2012
|
I agree that 'gentleman rules' should be avoided. Get enough of those and you might as well not have a combat system. I think the default spring attack has to go. I understand that there is a hold the line ability but that seems flimsy. I say move before or after or return Attacks of opportunity.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 20, 2012 - 3:34PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2005
|
During our playtest we ran into one (of the seemingly many, not a criticism of the system, the module is simplestic by design) of the many hordes of baddies, so we did what any sensible party should do and bottleneccked them to limit their advantage of numbers. With no AOO-s is there any way to prevent the kobolds (in this case) from just forming a conga line and getting about 9 attacks off per round while they hop in and out of combat?
The AOO for leaving melee was such a breakthrough in gaming I use it every rules sytem I run, even if it is not part of that rules system.
It just fixes so many things.
Eric
|
|
|
