Login Problems?

If you can't log into the forum, go here for help. Forum Login Info

The Avalon Team

It is currently Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:23 pm


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:00 pm 

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 230
Good point. Try out the flanking rules and see how it works. Be forewarned, when you add something like that, it will always be gar more effective on the PCs then the foes as the PCs are a constant while the foes are just there for a single encounter.

A fine example of this effect was critical hit charts that offered expanded damage and effects. As the PCs are a constant they in the game end up receiving the effects and suffered from them more. Ya the bad guys also took their licks, but it is the PCs that have to live with the effects. You will note that most Game designers have maved away from such charts.


So this optional rule is going to effect your party more often then not. This will then make the game more difficult. Some of these encounters are razor thin in their design and meant to be close calls and difficult fights. This option will make them even more difficult.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2018 2:31 am 

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:15 pm
Posts: 16
I've been using the optional Random Combat Actions for the last two days of play, and for the most find them to enhance the combat greatly.
The only negative I find is that the optional rules for both the Ambusher and Charger are almost identical.
I think it may be the wording as both use the "Move to Ambush" within their discriptions and implies that both types will move to try to get behind there target.

It would be clearer if for the Charger variant it read instead as, "Charge the" instead of "Move to Ambush",
This way it matches the standard ASA description of charger going straight in and ambusher trying to get behind.
Also like riggert posted in another thread the optional flanking rule in 5e would work very well for the ambushers and give them reason to get behind a target.
Gaining advantage if behind a target that has an Ally in front of their target.

Going to play these additions and see how they work out, will report back my findings.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:53 am 

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:02 pm
Posts: 6
I get your point about PC's being a constant but I think flanking rule would generally help the PC's more since you can get them into a flanking attack almost every turn vs the monster AI where I would only move them into a flanking position if the random combat action indicated ambush or something like that. Critical hit charts are different since both monsters and PC's have relatively equal access to this so that's where the PC being constant becomes a problem.

Could you confirm then that your intention of the "Ambush" or "getting behind" action has no advantage, it's just a description of how the monster is moving around


Top
 OfflineProfile  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:35 pm 

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 230
As the rules stand now, yes the ambush of getting behind is just to move them around you. If you like the flanking rules as outlined in the books, have fun. I will though, not make that a requirement, but an optional thing for each player to play or not.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:16 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:15 pm
Posts: 16
Yes I think having it optional in the correct choice, but it may be of benefit to have the flanking ability included within the ambushers AI rules, possible as a second variant of ambusher rolls.
Again having the ambusher rules to allow the unit to move behind the target if an Ally is in front to meet the conditions for flanking thereby getting advantage.
While the chargers rules can be defined to engage the target head on in Melee.

This way you present the players three levels of icombat based involvement.
1. The standard generic model of the engagement (General movement).
2. A more roll based movement set per class (AI based movement)
3. A more tactical roll based movement (AI tactical based movement)

The third set could have more class based decisions for the AI based on dice rolls.
Eg the chargers may try and knock a target prone giving their allies an advantage to hit.
Or the ambusher may on a roll may seek out cover and do a sheath check to get advantage on next attack. Defenders may call for backup on a roll that arrive in say 1d6 rounds with 1d4 units arriving. Etc.

May make the challenge a bit more difficult, but works like a difficulty level and gives more replay ability.
Would require a few more optional roll tables, but would cater a wider range of play styles.


Last edited by JohnG on Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 OfflineProfile  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:39 pm 

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:43 pm
Posts: 230
I can look into doing that, maybe expand the charts some, add more options and offer the bad guys more bad guy stuff to do.


Top
 OfflineProfile  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:53 pm 

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:02 pm
Posts: 6
Yeah I agree, upgrading the monster AI would be a huge improvement to gameplay. In its current form it is good but improving and expanding it would make the fights so much more interesting


Top
 OfflineProfile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
GuildWarsAlliance Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net
Guild Wars™ is a trademark of NCsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.