Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Joel P. Shempert, October 26, 2007, 09:42:50 PM
Quote from: Mel White on October 27, 2007, 10:26:13 AMAt the very least, your write-up of the battle was very engaging--I think because it accurately captures some my own experiences playing D&D from both sides of the screen.
Quote from: Mel White on October 27, 2007, 10:26:13 AMIt's a positive sign that your DM seems willing to adjust in order to give the players more of what they want. So as you communicate a desire for more tactical flexibility and challenges, perhaps you'll see it.
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 27, 2007, 12:50:50 PMOn the player side you have to learn tons of rules and how the combinations of rules work together, and hopefully you have teammates who are on the same page and you can coordinate tactics with. Though there's obvious tactics and common optimized ones, the hardcore team will sit down and develop specific combinations of spells and tactics for their party build, even going as far as writing down specific tactics for the first couple of rounds. Or, for the truly hardcore, they map out their character builds together, and consider how choosing later feats and spells will keep them an effective party from level 1 to level 20.And if you don't have that... well, you're as strong as your weakest link very often.
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 27, 2007, 12:50:50 PMOn the GM side, you're trying to prep a challenge for the players which is tactically interesting, challenging enough to take up your game time, but not so hard you're seriously in danger of PC death (for most games anyway, because getting a player to spend more time building a new character is disengaging, rather than engaging). Naturally, this magical difficulty level completely depends on the group playing and how hardcore they are as well.
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 27, 2007, 12:50:50 PMAn interesting hurdle is that there's tons of advice available on character builds, and very little on teamwork and tactics and utilzing the system choices to the best. In some part, I think it is because character build rules tend to be enforced pretty solidly in all D&D games, but actual rules in play tend to drift a lot based on the individual group. So an equally important factor is if anyone else in your group has actually played with AoO's or had the GM utilzed them intelligently against them, etc. If not, they probably think the rules are neat add-ons and not crucial information, compared to it being a key component of driving manuevering and tactics in D&D 3.0+.
Quote from: Mel White on October 27, 2007, 10:26:13 AMThe key, I think, for the party to start using innovative tactics in battles is that the opponents must be tough enough in some way that innovative tactics are required to defeat it. 'Necessity is the mother of invention' and all that...
Quote from: Callan S. on October 28, 2007, 04:20:20 AMBasically there's no point to tactics if you can't lose. If just rolling attack after attack will beat the monster, there's no point in flanking for example. In fact, to flank is losing - it's wasted effort for no gain - your going to win anyway, why fuck around?I think rather than 'Why aren't they doing fancy tactics', the question might be 'Why was there very little chance of losing?'. Err, assuming there was little chance of losing - what's your estimate?
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on October 28, 2007, 01:00:41 PMShifty mechanics is death to tactical choice. Tactics are based on optimal choices, which in turn, only develop when there's a consistency to the options you have.
Quote from: Precious Villain on October 28, 2007, 01:43:06 PMOn lethality, I have this question: how many fighters per in game day happen in your campaign?
Quote from: Precious Villain on October 28, 2007, 01:43:06 PMFinally, have you clarified with your DM that you seek a "tactical" game? It could be that your GM thinks you wants lots of exciting action, but doesn't want to get bogged down in trivia like attacks of opportunity or (apparently) spell resistance.
Quote from: Melinglor on October 30, 2007, 02:10:38 PMQuote from: Chris_Chinn on October 28, 2007, 01:00:41 PMShifty mechanics is death to tactical choice. Tactics are based on optimal choices, which in turn, only develop when there's a consistency to the options you have.Wholeheartedly agreed. I've actually had issues in the past with this GM over consistency, and now I'm trying to take things reeeeal nice and slow and tactful-like, 'cause the way I previously addressed those issues was pretty ugly.