|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 8:16PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
No. Opening things up opens things up (though always getting the DM's permission can slow things down). But that doesn't really change the tactics of hit first, hit hard.
Hit first, hit hard is normally good advice when fighting for one's life. You resort to tactics only when you need to obtain an advantage because straight offense isn't in your favor (kind of like in real life).
Tactics will become more meaningful as monsters become more meaningful (i.e. robust, challenging and scary). We're all aware that the designers are aware that monster numbers are off, and that they'll be fiddled with until the challenge is satisfactory.
I do like the rules light approach with the ability for all classes to attempt actions like push, knockdown, etc, but it is true that with monsters having such low hit points, and average encounters lasting 1-3 rounds (for at least the first 5 levels in the sessions I've DMd so far) there are less tactics used by PCs.
Agreed.
I don't think D&DNext is tactics light, it is just that with shorter combats, it is much less likely that players will engage in tactics. If the monsters were a bit more robust, and average combats lasted a few rounds longer, we could use more tactics. D&DNext should support both the quick fight and the longer more tactical battle so we can do both as needed/wanted. I think we will be able to do both by the end of the playtest.
I think so too. 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 9:50PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Misdirection and mindscrews. Like a good magician, I have the audience looking at where I want them to look, and not see the life-and-death situation they`ve willingly entered,
My experience in 3ed showed me the importance of pre-combat preparation: if the DM gets the party into a killzone, the encounter becomes far deadlier; if the party can control when and where they engage, they can cakewalk a tough fight. I think 5ed will be similar, in the importance of what happens before battle, instead of during it.
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 08, 2012 - 10:04PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2012
|
Misdirection and mindscrews. Like a good magician, I have the audience looking at where I want them to look, and not see the life-and-death situation they`ve willingly entered,
My experience in 3ed showed me the importance of pre-combat preparation: if the DM gets the party into a killzone, the encounter becomes far deadlier; if the party can control when and where they engage, they can cakewalk a tough fight. I think 5ed will be similar, in the importance of what happens before battle, instead of during it.
+1
That's how I like it. Or improv mid combat ideas.
Not a big fan of system mechanics driving tactical play, I have 2 minutes between the end of my turn and the start of the my next, and in that time I like to think about things that I can do that are interacting with the environment in interesting ways. I don't do it for the narrative, I do it because it's more challenging for me to be creative on a timer. But also frustrating when you can't think of anything, or what you love doesn't have the desired effect.
My mind is a deal-breaker.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:16AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Seems to me that "hit first, hit hard" is a principle of warfare rather than a tactic. I can define the principle by what the system gives me. Then I take that and develop my tactics.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:30AM
#25
|
|
|
These are always true too:
1) Don't get hit
2) Protect the squishies
3) Use the environment to your advantage
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:39AM
#26
|
|
|
Tactical depth requires that combat have the time to develop and the situation to be able to change over the course. In addition, you need a decent amount of powers that can change the course of the battle without ending it. Every PC should be able to have them, and there should be more than one. That just isn't present right now.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 10:58AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I would argue that the only requirement to depth of Tactical Depth is the requirement that the situation changes each and every time.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 11:02AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
As much as I like quick combats, I think they are going to have to raise the hp of monsters to account for all of the expertise bonuses, and to encourage more tactical combats. I think there are ample opportunities in D&DNext to play tactically, but with really short encounters there is less opportunity to play tactically.
Part of the problem is that monsters are just too squishy. Average combats last 1-3 rounds. In that amount of time, it is difficult to be tactical. If all of the bad guys just go down quickly, the optimal tactic is to attack at range as quickly as possible. That doesn't encourage movement or positioning.
I like average encounters to be pretty balanced. So if there are 4 PCs, I like an average encounter to be 4 PCs vs. 4 equal level opponents. I think WoTC has to play with the numbers to see what the optimal amount of combat rounds an average fight should take. From my experiences so far it seems as if an encounter like this will take only 1 round or 2 rounds at most. I think it should take 3 to 4 rounds.
I would rather have fewer opponents that take a little longer to kill than have to throw many more opponents at the PCs. I think more opponents slows the game down more than fewer opponents that are slightly tougher.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 11:08AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I find when DMing, that when the players have no idea how many HPs monsters have, the players are more mindful of their team's economy of force.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 09, 2012 - 12:48PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
I also find that the more straightforward math (less modifiers, bonuses, situational numbers, etc) leads to more critical consideration of options and capability because players are more involved in the story, aren't worried about all of the numbers impacting their contribution, and aren't anxious over 'being correct' with their math when their turn comes so they make more varied choices. -- This leads to more tactical depth at my tables as well.
|
|
|
