I honestly don't even know what we are talking about any more
You guys want to talk about Arena Rex? I fucking smashed my friend at it yesterday but it was an awesome game. I pushed someone into a Lion! Yeah!
I want you to not talk about Arena Rex because I keep wanting to buy into it so tell me more?
Funky thing about Arena Rex is that you get a fun sense of ebb and flow in the combat because of how fatigue works
So when you make an action other than move, or a reaction, you gain fatigue (or, if you're fatigued, you become exhausted)
Each turn you can remove a fatigue from someone and activate someone else. And that's key. Someone else. And if you can't activate anyone else because everyone is fatigued (if you're fatigued or exhausted at the beginning of the turn, you can't be activated) then you get a Clear Turn
Clear Turns are cool because they are the turn when you remove one fatigue from everyone (included exhausted guys, which is the only time you can do that) but you don't activate anyone. Instead you use favour, generated through the exciting stabbing and getting stabbed etc, to use tactics. So for example a tactic might be to move a Gladiator, or it might be a Faction Tactic of allowing everyone to make a smaller reposition for free with no possible enemy reaction.
So every few turns or so, your opponent or you runs out of energy, needs to take a turn recuperating and getting their breath back, and reforming in some way with a tactic. Which means if you're getting your arse kicked, you can focus on playing defensively, trying to slow them down, knowing that eventually they'll have to take that time-out for a turn, and then you can use that opportunity to properly hammer into them.
So if the fighter acts first, can disable all of the orcs in the opening round by doing something other than attacking,
Nah, just has to be able to distract more than 1 orc for 1 round in order for an option other than "attack one guy" to be possibly a good idea.
and the squishies can't do this because they are more likely to die if they try because they are less likely to succeed
Nah, succeed or fail, the tank is in the open.
And this is a regularly occurring set of circumstances,
Nah, its the most boring situation I could imagine, devoid of stuff like "the fighter, being strong, might have the option --shove the guy off the cliff or hit him with the sword".
such that you took umbrage with the idea that most of the time the best thing for a D&D fighter to do is to get into an optimal position and attack.
The rogue needs to fire that fucking bow. They can move wherever they want.
If they fire on round one, they don't get to move as far and they may need to.
And even in terms of sheer numbers, hiding in round one and backstabbing in round two is often a better option.
Not really. Assuming B/x rules, a level 1 thief with a +2 Dex modifier has a 45% chance of hitting an orc, vs. a 65% chance to hit with a backstab. 45% gives you a 70% chance to hit at least once in two rounds, with a 20% chance to hit twice. Now assuming 4HP only half of the single hits will kill which gives about a 45% chance to kill an orc yourself, whereas a backstab will kill 5/6 of the time, so 55%.
So you're losing 10% chance to kill an orc over those two rounds, BUT in exchange you've gained:
A chance to kill an orc before they ever get to activate, because missile weapons go before melee.
A second chance to kill an orc before they activate, when your backstab would've put you in the melee phase of combat.
A good chance to wound or finish off an orc that got tagged by another weak weapon, like a magic missile or a cleric's club.
At the end of those two rounds you've potentially moved 60' away from the combat, so you're actually safer than just hiding on round one.
Note that this all assumes that "hiding" is somehow automatic in D&D, which has never been true.
The post didn't specify edition--or the thief's level--all that has to be true is these two statements:
"If they fire on round one, they don't get to move as far and they may need to. "
"And even in terms of sheer numbers, hiding in round one and backstabbing in round two is often a better option".
It doesn't mean that it has to be a better option in all situations in specifically b/x or that hiding needs to be automatic.
There are lots of by-no-means marginal situations you can picture where that's true.
We don't have enough information for either of those statements to be true or untrue.
If you can imagine even one situation in any edition of D&D where the fighter has something better to do than hit one specific obvious target, where not even the choice of target is a tactical decision then my point is made.
If you literally cannot, and are literally sure that in every situation the only thing to ever do with a fighter is hit one obvious guy with the same attack over and over then it is not.
I set up one dull situation with 8 options offering different levels of risk and reward. It doesn't even have walls or shadows or fire or a pit trap and already there's more than one option.
Your argument has consistently been(until now) that the fighter is better at improvised combat maneuvers than any other class due to higher ac and hp, this is a clear shifting of the goalposts.
While that's also true, but this particular discussion today was started by someone saying the fighter literally had one good option.
Really it is crazy how a 20 page ruleset has such deep tactics like
I was thinking "man I really do not know what I want to do next, I have several options, all are good in different ways, but it really does depend on what he decides to do next because if I leave myself open I am fucked. Do I make an attack with this guy, who is tough enough to withstand the counter attack but too slow to get in an ideal position, or do I take a risk and go for the attack with my striker hoping it works out? Or do I throw forward my Crowd Control Gladiator to slow them down? Ah but if I do that, then they could push someone up, I fatigue her to stop them, then next turn I can refresh her but not use her, and if I refresh her I can't refresh this other guy who will then be vulnerable to an assault because he can't react when fatigued..."
And then I pushed him into a Lion which could actually not have gone well, because I sacrificed damage to do that, hoping the Lion would repay the investment and also block the ability of some of his other dudes to assist, which he did. Careful placement to shove him close to the Lion at such a point where it pounced right next him, rather than behind him, and thus split the enemy. Around a Lion! Fuck yeah!
The fighter has to be able to distract at least three orcs for it to be a viable option since his body by default will stall two orcs for one round, and it takes two orcs to kill him. If he can distract three orcs then he can get a second turn to live, if he can't distract three orcs then he might as well just kill an orc with his turn rather than anything else to put the party ahead on kills.
Really it is crazy how a 20 page ruleset has such deep tactics like
I was thinking "man I really do not know what I want to do next, I have several options, all are good in different ways, but it really does depend on what he decides to do next because if I leave myself open I be fuuuucked"
And then I pushed him into a Lion which could actually not have gone well, because I sacrificed damage to do that, hoping the Lion would repay the investment and also block the ability of some of his other dudes to assist, which he did. Careful placement to shove him close to the Lion at such a point where it pounced right next him, rather than behind him, and thus split the enemy. Around a Lion! Fuck yeah!
Every time I look at Arena Rex I want to get the three Gorgons but that's like a hundred bucks for three minis which is a lot.
But also I prefer small tactical minis games so getting a bunch of Arena Rex dudes is honestly ideal for me?
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
(The other obvious reason is sometimes blinding 2 orcs is less of a good idea than stabbing one orc, even if you like improvisation. It depends on the situation you're in.)
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Which is "move to an optimal position and attack", so your point is?
But from what I can tell the GenCon tournament was six slots. Well that's six Gladiators, or three Titans. And that's a bigger game than we play, we use four right now and that's plenty of depth for sure
It's definitely a small scale game though. You don't go above eight that we can see. It's very tactical. I'd say honestly get a starter, get a cool couple of extra ones you like, and there's a properly ready to go Ludus right there.
Plus there's no limitations, you can mix and match, it's just if you go all in on one specific Ludus you get some little bonuses. Well I say all-in, 3/4.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
The claim was the only reasonable thing a fighter could do is ""move to an optimal position and attack"
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude. Either way, it's move+attack.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Optimal is situational, yes. That has nothing to do with this discussion because every PC should be going through the same math to determine the best target for an attack.
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude.
...and since sometimes you don't know the baddie's exact hp or stats (or what the baddie will do or not before the rest of the party's turn), then you have a choice to make, and the answer is not obvious.
Thus meaning there's more than one potentially viable thing to do.
I missed that entire Fighter discussion but did anyone mention how the Fighter has more options that just their full attack?
They can grapple, push, pull, trip, disarm, ect...
I'd also comment that a good DM will have described an environment in such a way as to provide a Fighter (or any player) additional options/ideas.
In practice though that really just means that if you made say, a tripping optimized fighter, your optimized attack every round involves tripping as part of yout action.
If I want narration based combat where I play off the environment, well, I'd play dungeon world. And I do want that! So I play Dungeon World.
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude.
...and since sometimes you don't know the baddie's exact hp or stats (or what the baddie will do or not before the rest of the party's turn), then you have a choice to make, and the answer is not obvious.
Thus meaning there's more than one potentially viable thing to do.
But that potentially viable thing is move+attack. You're trying to play some kind of gotcha? idgi
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude.
...and since sometimes you don't know the baddie's exact hp or stats (or what the baddie will do or not before the rest of the party's turn), then you have a choice to make, and the answer is not obvious.
Thus meaning there's more than one potentially viable thing to do.
"Optimal" can still be based on an assumption or math. The fact that you're effectively guessing whether "big" means 8 or 6 HP or "little" means 1 or 3 HP is irrelevant if you're making the best decision with the information you have at hand.
Optimal is situational, yes. That has nothing to do with this discussion because every PC should be going through the same math to determine the best target for an attack.
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude.
...and since sometimes you don't know the baddie's exact hp or stats (or what the baddie will do or not before the rest of the party's turn), then you have a choice to make, and the answer is not obvious.
Thus meaning there's more than one potentially viable thing to do.
"Optimal" can still be based on an assumption or math. The fact that you're effectively guessing whether "big" means 8 or 6 HP or "little" means 1 or 3 HP is irrelevant if you're making the best decision with the information you have at hand.
So which is it?
Which is the super-obvious only-possible-boring-optimal-thing your dull fighter can do knowing only one is big and one is small?
Tie up the big guy or try to one-shot the little guy?
Optimal is situational, yes. That has nothing to do with this discussion because every PC should be going through the same math to determine the best target for an attack.
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude.
...and since sometimes you don't know the baddie's exact hp or stats (or what the baddie will do or not before the rest of the party's turn), then you have a choice to make, and the answer is not obvious.
Thus meaning there's more than one potentially viable thing to do.
"Optimal" can still be based on an assumption or math. The fact that you're effectively guessing whether "big" means 8 or 6 HP or "little" means 1 or 3 HP is irrelevant if you're making the best decision with the information you have at hand.
So which is it?
Which is the super-obvious only-possible-boring-thing your dull fighter can do knowing only one is big and one is small?
Tie up the big guy or try to one-shot the little guy?
What is the big guy, what is the little guy, how many rounds of combat has there been, who are my party members, what actions have they taken, what's the initiative queue like? What kind of terrain affects my move? Have I taken any hits so far? What's my HP and the damage dealt to the two targets? Where's the rogue? Has the cleric cast any buff spells?
C'mon, stop playing.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Optimal is situational, yes. That has nothing to do with this discussion because every PC should be going through the same math to determine the best target for an attack.
Or...the fights are usuallt deadly so the fighter has seen that usually doing the obvious thing gets you killed so does something unusual.
It really depends on the fighter and on the campaign they're in.
Which, as I noted above, really just means that you've decided improvised actions are inherently more rewarding than built-in actions and set the difficulties and results to allow for that. Which is not a function of the Fighter, it's a function of your approach to D&D.
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude.
...and since sometimes you don't know the baddie's exact hp or stats (or what the baddie will do or not before the rest of the party's turn), then you have a choice to make, and the answer is not obvious.
Thus meaning there's more than one potentially viable thing to do.
"Optimal" can still be based on an assumption or math. The fact that you're effectively guessing whether "big" means 8 or 6 HP or "little" means 1 or 3 HP is irrelevant if you're making the best decision with the information you have at hand.
So which is it?
Which is the super-obvious only-possible-boring-thing your dull fighter can do knowing only one is big and one is small?
Tie up the big guy or try to one-shot the little guy?
I mean I just explained this but I guess I'll type the same thing in different words: you make the optimal decision based on how extreme you think the GM has decided size effects HP. If you think it's 8/1 you should attack someone in the middle, leave the 8 for last, and leave the 1 for the rogue or cleric. If you think it's 6/3 you should attack the 3 because your strength bonus likely guarantees a kill. Either way all you've done is made an optimal decision based on your interpretation of the data.
"Tying up the big guy" is rarely an optimal decision, btw. Especially as we've already established they're all 1HD.
Does anyone else remember the book of weaboo fightan magic
Because there was a reason why people loved that book and it wasn't because it meant fighters got to sit there and swing el swordo all day and all night long
Ahh, you mean this one?
+6
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
OOOhhh I'm still in time to get in on this!
I figured out a good definition for DM Fiat. The question is "What happens when the fighter throws flour in the orcs face". The answer is DM Fiat.
As an aside, I've read fiat so much that the word has lost meaning. Fiat Fiat Fiat.
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Also the fact that you have to do basic combat math when you're a Fighter does not make the Fighter interesting. All classes should be doing the same combat math.
I mean I just explained this but I guess I'll type the same thing in different words: you make the optimal decision based on how extreme you think the GM has decided size effects HP.
But you don't know that. In the game you don't know-so that is at least one judgment call you're making.
You are trying to make the optimal choice, sure, but there isn't enough data that one is obvious. So you have options, plural. And you have to pick one.
Thus you have more than one option.
You can also get a klik more complex with "high-risk/high-reward" options vs more conservative ones. But all we have to prove right now is that there is more than one thing to do that "move to optimal position, hit guy" if only because "optimal position" is often unclear (and unclarifiable).
I mean I just explained this but I guess I'll type the same thing in different words: you make the optimal decision based on how extreme you think the GM has decided size effects HP.
But you don't know that. In the game you don't know-so that is at least one judgment call you're making.
Thus you have more than one option.
Well, if you're lucky you have a Wizard with high intelligence who can make a roll and determine with higher likelihood how many HP a "large orc" has. But since you're just a shitty Fighter you don't have that option. Instead, you get to guess.
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
If this argument goes on any longer I am going to start throwing flour into all of your eyes.
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
This whole argument is ultimately the thing I both like and dislike about D&D. So much of the game boils down to this damn math and while I enjoy it, I would almost always rather do it in the context of a board game or card game. The one thing RPGs offer is a stronger feeling of attachment to the result, since character death is a longer-term pain than losing a round of a board game.
But with the amount of time and effort it takes to get an RPG group together, I would much rather do something that's wholly unique then play a board game with scarier consequences.
I mean I just explained this but I guess I'll type the same thing in different words: you make the optimal decision based on how extreme you think the GM has decided size effects HP.
But you don't know that. In the game you don't know-so that is at least one judgment call you're making.
You are trying to make the optimal choice, sure, but there isn't enough data that one is obvious. So you have options, plural. And you have to pick one.
Thus you have more than one option.
You can also get a klik more complex with "high-risk/high-reward" options vs more conservative ones. But all we have to prove right now is that there is more than one thing to do that "move to optimal position, hit guy" if only because "optimal position" is often unclear (and unclarifiable).
Also the fact that you have to do basic combat math when you're a Fighter does not make the Fighter interesting. All classes should be doing the same combat math.
I've been thinking, if I have another day without work this week, I'll sit down and try to write out a standard dungeon crawl.
No over-arching story, no complicated plot.
Just a big dungeon for my friends to run through as a one-off.
At every turn they'll be expecting something awful, and every time it doesn't happen, they'll be expecting it even more at the next turn, and on and on until they go mad.
I've been thinking, if I have another day without work this week, I'll sit down and try to write out a standard dungeon crawl.
No over-arching story, no complicated plot.
Just a big dungeon for my friends to run through as a one-off.
At every turn they'll be expecting something awful, and every time it doesn't happen, they'll be expecting it even more at the next turn, and on and on until they go mad.
And then, at the end of it all, rum ham for everyone.
+2
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
I've been thinking, if I have another day without work this week, I'll sit down and try to write out a standard dungeon crawl.
No over-arching story, no complicated plot.
Just a big dungeon for my friends to run through as a one-off.
At every turn they'll be expecting something awful, and every time it doesn't happen, they'll be expecting it even more at the next turn, and on and on until they go mad.
And then, at the end of it all, rum ham for everyone.
Posts
it looks super cool and super expensive
Funky thing about Arena Rex is that you get a fun sense of ebb and flow in the combat because of how fatigue works
So when you make an action other than move, or a reaction, you gain fatigue (or, if you're fatigued, you become exhausted)
Each turn you can remove a fatigue from someone and activate someone else. And that's key. Someone else. And if you can't activate anyone else because everyone is fatigued (if you're fatigued or exhausted at the beginning of the turn, you can't be activated) then you get a Clear Turn
Clear Turns are cool because they are the turn when you remove one fatigue from everyone (included exhausted guys, which is the only time you can do that) but you don't activate anyone. Instead you use favour, generated through the exciting stabbing and getting stabbed etc, to use tactics. So for example a tactic might be to move a Gladiator, or it might be a Faction Tactic of allowing everyone to make a smaller reposition for free with no possible enemy reaction.
So every few turns or so, your opponent or you runs out of energy, needs to take a turn recuperating and getting their breath back, and reforming in some way with a tactic. Which means if you're getting your arse kicked, you can focus on playing defensively, trying to slow them down, knowing that eventually they'll have to take that time-out for a turn, and then you can use that opportunity to properly hammer into them.
Nah, just has to be able to distract more than 1 orc for 1 round in order for an option other than "attack one guy" to be possibly a good idea.
Nah, succeed or fail, the tank is in the open.
Nah, its the most boring situation I could imagine, devoid of stuff like "the fighter, being strong, might have the option --shove the guy off the cliff or hit him with the sword".
They didn't say "mostly" they said "always".
While that's also true, but this particular discussion today was started by someone saying the fighter literally had one good option.
I was thinking "man I really do not know what I want to do next, I have several options, all are good in different ways, but it really does depend on what he decides to do next because if I leave myself open I am fucked. Do I make an attack with this guy, who is tough enough to withstand the counter attack but too slow to get in an ideal position, or do I take a risk and go for the attack with my striker hoping it works out? Or do I throw forward my Crowd Control Gladiator to slow them down? Ah but if I do that, then they could push someone up, I fatigue her to stop them, then next turn I can refresh her but not use her, and if I refresh her I can't refresh this other guy who will then be vulnerable to an assault because he can't react when fatigued..."
And then I pushed him into a Lion which could actually not have gone well, because I sacrificed damage to do that, hoping the Lion would repay the investment and also block the ability of some of his other dudes to assist, which he did. Careful placement to shove him close to the Lion at such a point where it pounced right next him, rather than behind him, and thus split the enemy. Around a Lion! Fuck yeah!
If you don't, then I haven't.
Every time I look at Arena Rex I want to get the three Gorgons but that's like a hundred bucks for three minis which is a lot.
But also I prefer small tactical minis games so getting a bunch of Arena Rex dudes is honestly ideal for me?
Not at all, one reason is: because you've focused on the alleged "improv" options and ignored the others.
The choice of "hit the biggest guy to tie them up in melee" or "hit the littlest guy because you have a better chance of one-shotting them and eliminating their offensive capability" is a legit choice even before you get into other options.
That's 2 things to choose from right there.
(The other obvious reason is sometimes blinding 2 orcs is less of a good idea than stabbing one orc, even if you like improvisation. It depends on the situation you're in.)
Which is "move to an optimal position and attack", so your point is?
But from what I can tell the GenCon tournament was six slots. Well that's six Gladiators, or three Titans. And that's a bigger game than we play, we use four right now and that's plenty of depth for sure
It's definitely a small scale game though. You don't go above eight that we can see. It's very tactical. I'd say honestly get a starter, get a cool couple of extra ones you like, and there's a properly ready to go Ludus right there.
Plus there's no limitations, you can mix and match, it's just if you go all in on one specific Ludus you get some little bonuses. Well I say all-in, 3/4.
Those are both hitting a guy. You can't base your whole argument on Fighters having more options than hitting a guy and then list hitting a guy as the reason your argument isn't based on an inherent bias towards improvised solutions.
The claim was the only reasonable thing a fighter could do is ""move to an optimal position and attack"
Which is the optimal position?
Depends on the situation. If your other party members can also take care of the small dude then the optimal position is attacking the big guy. If someone else is handling the big guy, then handle the small dude. Either way, it's move+attack.
...and since sometimes you don't know the baddie's exact hp or stats (or what the baddie will do or not before the rest of the party's turn), then you have a choice to make, and the answer is not obvious.
Thus meaning there's more than one potentially viable thing to do.
In practice though that really just means that if you made say, a tripping optimized fighter, your optimized attack every round involves tripping as part of yout action.
If I want narration based combat where I play off the environment, well, I'd play dungeon world. And I do want that! So I play Dungeon World.
But that potentially viable thing is move+attack. You're trying to play some kind of gotcha? idgi
As a dude that's currently running a Star Wars game using the system it's based on... Yeah!
I'm really jazzed for there improvements they've made cause I do love the system.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
"Optimal" can still be based on an assumption or math. The fact that you're effectively guessing whether "big" means 8 or 6 HP or "little" means 1 or 3 HP is irrelevant if you're making the best decision with the information you have at hand.
So which is it?
Which is the super-obvious only-possible-boring-optimal-thing your dull fighter can do knowing only one is big and one is small?
Tie up the big guy or try to one-shot the little guy?
What is the big guy, what is the little guy, how many rounds of combat has there been, who are my party members, what actions have they taken, what's the initiative queue like? What kind of terrain affects my move? Have I taken any hits so far? What's my HP and the damage dealt to the two targets? Where's the rogue? Has the cleric cast any buff spells?
C'mon, stop playing.
I mean I just explained this but I guess I'll type the same thing in different words: you make the optimal decision based on how extreme you think the GM has decided size effects HP. If you think it's 8/1 you should attack someone in the middle, leave the 8 for last, and leave the 1 for the rogue or cleric. If you think it's 6/3 you should attack the 3 because your strength bonus likely guarantees a kill. Either way all you've done is made an optimal decision based on your interpretation of the data.
"Tying up the big guy" is rarely an optimal decision, btw. Especially as we've already established they're all 1HD.
Ahh, you mean this one?
I figured out a good definition for DM Fiat. The question is "What happens when the fighter throws flour in the orcs face". The answer is DM Fiat.
As an aside, I've read fiat so much that the word has lost meaning. Fiat Fiat Fiat.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
But you don't know that. In the game you don't know-so that is at least one judgment call you're making.
You are trying to make the optimal choice, sure, but there isn't enough data that one is obvious. So you have options, plural. And you have to pick one.
Thus you have more than one option.
You can also get a klik more complex with "high-risk/high-reward" options vs more conservative ones. But all we have to prove right now is that there is more than one thing to do that "move to optimal position, hit guy" if only because "optimal position" is often unclear (and unclarifiable).
I hadn't heard about these improvements, are they making any significant changes or just minor tweaks?
(I really don't like the system so I doubt I'll like Genesys but you never know!)
DIESEL
Against the Fall of Night Playtest
Nasty, Brutish, and Short
Well, if you're lucky you have a Wizard with high intelligence who can make a roll and determine with higher likelihood how many HP a "large orc" has. But since you're just a shitty Fighter you don't have that option. Instead, you get to guess.
If nothing else, I think we've all learned something today. Or learned nothing. I'm not sure what the outcome was supposed to be.
But with the amount of time and effort it takes to get an RPG group together, I would much rather do something that's wholly unique then play a board game with scarier consequences.
holy shit im dying irl
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
No over-arching story, no complicated plot.
Just a big dungeon for my friends to run through as a one-off.
At every turn they'll be expecting something awful, and every time it doesn't happen, they'll be expecting it even more at the next turn, and on and on until they go mad.
And then, at the end of it all, rum ham for everyone.
A CR 20 encounter.