|
|
Post by scottanderson on Aug 24, 2017 11:21:23 GMT -5
One of the implicit bargains in an adventuring party is the fighting-man risks his life repeatedly to keep the wizard upright at lower levels. But the fighter has no class ability that can actually keep bad guys off the wizard, does he? In CHAINMAIL figures have to stop moving when the bases come into contact - they are "sticky." Not so in most D&D versions. Bad guys can just blow by fighters and get the wizards!
So I have adopted a variant of the 3e era Attack of Opportunity. When one figure attempts to leave a space adjacent to another figure, the stationary figure gets one free melee attack out of turn if the player wants one. Then if that attack does hit point damage, the moving figure must stop. Each figure only gets one opportunity attack in a round so in busy combats it pays to be judicious with that attack.
This is not just for fighters, but it would be most commonly attempted by melee types.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 12:09:06 GMT -5
It says plainly in OD&D that three characters totally fill up a ten foot corridor. THAT is how fighters protect the magic user.
Don't complicate a perfectly useful and very simple system.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Aug 24, 2017 13:39:57 GMT -5
What about if you only have two figures? What if it's a relatively open area? I not trying to be a wiseass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 22:13:30 GMT -5
Then it's a lot harder to protect the magic user, and you might not succeed!
That is a feature, not a bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 25, 2017 15:52:09 GMT -5
Getting past someone is NOT easy! Watch some football to see just how impossible it can be. And football players don't have shields and spears!! Just make everyone "sticky" as you say. It's perfectly cromulent.
At least as early as B/X, once in melee, the only movement direction allowed was backwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 12:00:29 GMT -5
No, DON'T make fighting men stickier! It takes a certain number of men to prevent infiltration on purpose. Why do you think the rules for hiring henchmen and mercenaries exist, anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 26, 2017 14:57:57 GMT -5
No, DON'T make fighting men stickier! It takes a certain number of men to prevent infiltration on purpose. Why do you think the rules for hiring henchmen and mercenaries exist, anyway? Maybe scottanderson is trying to prevent a situation where you can just run though front lines? I've never played where this would be possible without some consequence. I always assumed that once engaged in melee, that's where you stayed until victory, defeat, or retreat. However, I don't know how OD&D assumes this works, just later editions. |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Aug 26, 2017 18:28:44 GMT -5
Mike's way - the original D&D way - still presumes some physics involved. The attacker can't just move through the defender's personal space. I guess some stickiness is axiomatic.
Thank you Mike for explaining how you did it. I think I will try it both ways and see which one makes more sense in play. Maybe party size is important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2017 20:33:28 GMT -5
Why, yes. Party size IS important!
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Aug 26, 2017 22:44:18 GMT -5
Why, yes. Party size IS important! That's what she said. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 10, 2017 15:54:46 GMT -5
A fine idea. Fighters need something to make them stand out from the pack in combat, after all thats all they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 10, 2017 19:12:10 GMT -5
IMO a well played fighter does stand out from the pack.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 13:35:25 GMT -5
As someone who used to do recreations of sword fights and took a bunch of karate, I gotta say 3 peeps fighting in a line is going to drastically inhibit your fighting ability, the flip side of the coin is if you are engaged in a melee with someone, You dont end up paying attention to most anything but your opponent. Both views are equally flawed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 15:54:25 GMT -5
As someone who used to do recreations of sword fights and took a bunch of karate, I gotta say 3 peeps fighting in a line is going to drastically inhibit your fighting ability, the flip side of the coin is if you are engaged in a melee with someone, You dont end up paying attention to most anything but your opponent. Both views are equally flawed. Rather than having them fight side by side in a ten foot wide corridor how would you arrange them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 16:08:01 GMT -5
Standard close order for Roman legionaries was 3 1/2 foot center to center, which is sure close enough to 3 in 10 feet.
Gary didn't pull that number out of his ear.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 16:09:22 GMT -5
As someone who used to do recreations of sword fights and took a bunch of karate, I gotta say 3 peeps fighting in a line is going to drastically inhibit your fighting ability, the flip side of the coin is if you are engaged in a melee with someone, You dont end up paying attention to most anything but your opponent. Both views are equally flawed. Rather than having them fight side by side in a ten foot wide corridor how would you arrange them? By saying they are fighting only 2 side by side |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 16:14:14 GMT -5
Rather than having them fight side by side in a ten foot wide corridor how would you arrange them? By saying they are fighting only 2 side by side. You can do it however you like it: however, don't say that people are wrong for following historical examples like the Romans. Standard close order for Roman legionaries was 3 1/2 foot center to center, which is sure close enough to 3 in 10 feet. Gary didn't pull that number out of his ear. This is not the first place I have read this. So I happen to know this is correct, this is how the Romans did it. We cannot be faulted for following that model. The spacing dictates the weapons you use and the way you fight. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 16:14:41 GMT -5
Standard close order for Roman legionaries was 3 1/2 foot center to center, which is sure close enough to 3 in 10 feet. Gary didn't pull that number out of his ear. The roman style of mass combat does not apply. It is only effective when there are several hundred in a row not to mention they used short swords that they only thrusted with(The pila was strictly for throwing.). Plus that would assume they had corridor fitting shields. It would also assume that all your mixed group of elves dwarves and humans were trained in the exact same way.No, sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 16:19:26 GMT -5
Standard close order for Roman legionaries was 3 1/2 foot center to center, which is sure close enough to 3 in 10 feet. Gary didn't pull that number out of his ear. The roman style of mass combat does not apply. It is only effective when there are several hundred in a row not to mention they used short swords that they only thrusted with(The pila was strictly for throwing.). Plus that would assume they had corridor fitting shields. It would also assume that all your mixed group of elves dwarves and humans were trained in the exact same way.No, sorry. I will still run my game my way and feel confident that I am doing it right, as can everyone else. You are making IMO unwarranted assumptions, in a open field you have a lot of men in a row, in a dungeon the walls are the other men in the row, with three abreast with short swords you have a reasonable facsimile of roman style mass combat. Ideally that is not your only row. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 16:42:04 GMT -5
If the romans could break apart into 2-4 man formations, they would not have gotten wiped out by german barbarians in Tannanburg Forest, forever keeping them on the western bank of the Rhine. Another example is Lake Trasmin, where Carthage ambushed the romans. If they could have formed into smaller units they would have won.That being said :Its your game and you can do whatever you want with it, so in fact nobody is wrong. But you can't use the romans to justify it.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 12, 2017 17:06:52 GMT -5
You're both right. two abreast and three abreast are both valid choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Sept 12, 2017 17:42:22 GMT -5
If the romans could break apart into 2-4 man formations, they would not have gotten wiped out by german barbarians in Tannanburg Forest, forever keeping them on the western bank of the Rhine. Another example is Lake Trasmin, where Carthage ambushed the romans. If they could have formed into smaller units they would have won.That being said :Its your game and you can do whatever you want with it, so in fact nobody is wrong. But you can't use the romans to justify it. IMO that is not an apt comparison, dungeons walls in a corridor eliminate flanking in the open forest they were attacked from all directions in what IIRC was an ambush. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2017 17:47:41 GMT -5
If the romans could break apart into 2-4 man formations, they would not have gotten wiped out by german barbarians in Tannanburg Forest, forever keeping them on the western bank of the Rhine. Another example is Lake Trasmin, where Carthage ambushed the romans. If they could have formed into smaller units they would have won.That being said :Its your game and you can do whatever you want with it, so in fact nobody is wrong. But you can't use the romans to justify it. IMO that is not an apt comparison, dungeons walls in a corridor eliminate flanking in the open forest they were attacked from all directions in what IIRC was an ambush. We are putting WAY to much effort into a silly discussion where actually everyone is right. BUT I am more right  |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 1:41:42 GMT -5
I like my fighters and clerics to be able to swing axes, maces, and swords on occasion which cannot be done 3 abreast within a 10 ft corridor. With shields and spears (or thrusting short swords) you can thrust, defend, and be absolutely devastating just like a historical open-field Roman battle formation. But, luckily for all of us D&D isn't a war simulator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 13, 2017 21:18:32 GMT -5
I like my fighters and clerics to be able to swing axes, maces, and swords on occasion which cannot be done 3 abreast within a 10 ft corridor. With shields and spears (or thrusting short swords) you can thrust, defend, and be absolutely devastating just like a historical open-field Roman battle formation. But, luckily for all of us D&D isn't a war simulator. My players prefer the ability to make three attacks from the front line per melee round versus only two attacks especially when you are receiving three attacks from the other side. Giving the monsters a 50% advantage on purpose is not good tactics IMO. I would like to run my monsters against your fighting-men some time and demonstrate that among equally matched opponents three attacks per round versus two attacks per round is a serious mismatch in favor of the monsters. |
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 13, 2017 22:28:35 GMT -5
3 beats 2 every time without a doubt Crimhthan The Great . No argument here! However, I did say "on occasion." If I saw 3 monsters marching down a 10ft corridor in a Roman military phalanx formation armed with spears and shields, this would NOT be one of those occasions lol. I would be slaughtered and rightfully so. Assuming I had a 3rd fighter somewhere, instead it would be: "Alright troops! Form a line! March!" Or something like that. If I didn't have a third fighter or anyone else in the party, then running away is always a solid choice. I've never been too proud to run for my life, unless the character's personality dictates otherwise and it would be funny to do so. In general, I try to minimize risk as much as possible. The above scenario you laid out would be suicidal for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 14, 2017 7:45:38 GMT -5
3 beats 2 every time without a doubt Crimhthan The Great . No argument here! However, I did say "on occasion." If I saw 3 monsters marching down a 10ft corridor in a Roman military phalanx formation armed with spears and shields, this would NOT be one of those occasions lol. I would be slaughtered and rightfully so. Assuming I had a 3rd fighter somewhere, instead it would be: "Alright troops! Form a line! March!" Or something like that. If I didn't have a third fighter or anyone else in the party, then running away is always a solid choice. I've never been too proud to run for my life, unless the character's personality dictates otherwise and it would be funny to do so. In general, I try to minimize risk as much as possible. The above scenario you laid out would be suicidal for sure. I can think of hundreds of things I could throw at you that would not involve monsters using Roman tactics that would involve three monsters with three or more attacks between them. I can't think of anything that I would do that would make two abreast a good idea. Fighters in the front row with short swords and long spears or pikes in the second row is basic common sense. Why would you go into a dungeon with less than 8-10 fighting-men? |
|
|
|
Post by scottanderson on Sept 14, 2017 10:07:12 GMT -5
Not everyone makes the sameness assumptions. Not everyone plays with henchmen at all. Not everyone has enough money to hire that many.
I can't remember ever hiring nine men for a dungeon crawl - not that i would be against doing it, just never did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Sept 14, 2017 11:01:23 GMT -5
Why would you go into a dungeon with less than 8-10 fighting-men? I don't always want to play in a dungeon crawl-type game where the best tactic is: "rows and rows of meatshields march in formation." Sometimes I'd rather just play a single character, where the party size is only 2-5 characters. If you think hiring a platoon a fighters to clear out a dungeon is fun, go for it! I'd love to try that one day. My current PbP is developing into a somewhat similar experience, and I'm very excited to see how it turns out. So far, I've enjoyed it a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on Sept 14, 2017 11:25:25 GMT -5
Why would you go into a dungeon with less than 8-10 fighting-men? I don't always want to play in a dungeon crawl-type game where the best tactic is: "rows and rows of meatshields march in formation." Sometimes I'd rather just play a single character, where the party size is only 2-5 characters. If you think hiring a platoon a fighters to clear out a dungeon is fun, go for it! I'd love to try that one day. My current PbP is developing into a somehwhat similar experience, and I'm very excited to see how it turns out. So far, I've enjoyed it a lot. Who said anything about hiring a platoon of fighting-men? |
|
