Quote from: S'mon;980349I don't see how a typical 5e medium encounter can beat the shit out of a typical party. It just seems totally alien to what I've seen. Wizards can easily use magic like mage armour & shield to have good ACs.

Look at how many appropriate-CR enemies do enough damage in a single round to drop a wizard to 0 in one round (e.g. the CR 12 Erinyes can do 12d8+12 in one round, the CR 7 stone giant can do 6d8+12,  CR 2 ghast does 2d6+3, CR 20 ancient white dragon does 16d8, etc). Or look at what you could do with mobs of a couple levels lower if they simply ignored the front rank, ate the OAs, and swarmed the back rank. If you play to kill, and/or the party doesn't turtle at doorways all the time, there are a lot of times you could really mess up the party with the 6-8 of those they can supposedly handle.

Basically, if DMs focused on trying to kill at least one party member instead of being fair/reasonable/realistic/etc, I think there are a lot more opportunities than most people realize.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329If the fighter's already engaged him in melee, the BBEG's only options are to fight to the death or retreat.

That is stated nowhere in RAW. Instead there is a consequence for moving away from one's enemy.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329What I'm really being a stickler for here is the concept of "advancing" and "retreating." You're interpreting moving deeper into enemy forces as "retreating." I don't read it that way. As I interpret it, moving past the fighter through his zone of control isn't "retreating;" it's "advancing." Once you hit zone the dude with a sword controls, your options are fight, or move the other direction. Continuing forward isn't on the table. Someone can correct me if I'm completely wrong here. That's just how I understand the text.

Then you are the same as the rule lawyers using 3.X or later editions. Letting the rules dictate what can and can't be done instead of what would actually happen if you really there fighting the battle.

In your example there is no formation. Just two combatants engaged in combat with three other individual scattered about the room. There is no plausible reason to rule that the BBEG can't just move by the lone warrior and attack whomever he wants in the rear. It is plausible however that there a severe consequence to do so.

This is in contrast with a BBEG in a corridor that meets a party that is in a formation that extends across the corridor. It is not plausible that the BBEG could just move through the frontline to attack the somebody in the rear. The BBEG has to something proactive like grapple with one of the front line fighters and throw them out of the way. Again a action with consequences for the BBEG the two most important of which is that the BBEG is vulnerable to multiple attacks, and has to spend time breaking a hole open in the formation which gives the party more time for additional attacks.

I will say that specifically for OD&D this is something that a 13 HD BBEG is going to try to pull against mid level party or higher. Simply because the amount of hit points and armor class even the toughest creatures have leaves them vulnerable to multiple attacker executing the equivalent of a blanket beating. It is the same way in D&D 5th edition. People complain about the bloated hit points but they forget the multiple attacks and higher amount of damage built into the system at higher levels.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329I don't think this is the difference. It seems to me that the early rules are framed in terms of coherent battle lines. It is quite obvious when I have a line of a dozen spearmen in formation with archers and artillery behind them what the "front line" is, where "forward" is, and where "backward" is. The language of combat is consistently framed in these terms all the way through at least Mentzer Basic, probably 2e as well. This is also why initiative is per side, rather than per individual. The sides are often described as forming battle lines.

However that not the example given that I replied too. A lone fighter engaging a BBEG with three other in a room is not a formation.  As for the early rules being oriented around formation. I disagree that were about that. They were accounted for because there Gygax used common sense and things he learned by reading that recognizes that formations were an important part of melee. But realize there are numerous accounts of people soloing dungeons or adventuring in small groups.  To me OD&D accounts for both and there things you can do that are smart or stupid in both situations and in the ones in between. And yes if you have the numbers by god learn to use a formation.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329The problem is these rules dissolve into incoherence in what eventually became the typical situation of 4-6 PCs fighting in a room, especially when using minis. Once people have spread out a bit, there's no longer an obvious "front line" or "forward" direction.

I disagree that OD&D is incoherent when melee is a series of duels.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329So beginning with 3rd edition, the rules are reframed in terms of the individual PC (and 3.5 onward, the individual token on the grid) rather than battle lines and formations. The rules were made clear and consistent, but the ability to meaningfully control space was lost in the process.

Nothing was lost, zone of control was never part of OD&D in the way you are thinking. From your reply it seems to me it is a house rule you been using for years.

Let's be through about this, In Chainmail 2nd edition on page 14 we have the following notes.

QuoteMiscellaneous Melee Information:
1. Missiles cannot be fired into a melee.

2. All types of troops are cons idered to control the space I" on either side of themselves to stop infiltration.

3. Units within 3"of a melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires. However, the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn. The unit joining the melee may move up to 6" into battle.

Based on my experience playing later wargames I am going to assume that control in this case means "once entered, movement ceases, the combatant is not in melee". That how ZoC worked in Panzerblitz which is the first time I encountered the concept.

What it doesn't mean that in subsequent rounds the combatant CAN'T move out of the ZoC to somewhere else. If I remember correctly in Panzerblitz if you are smart you arranged your units with ZoC side by side so that fast units can only move one hex a phase until they are completely through. The fact you take multiple poundings in doing meant it was on done out of desperation or in specific circumstances.

And I think this is the correct interpretation of what control was meant in Chainmail (Gronan will correct me) due to this on page 18 of Swords & Spell

QuoteMelee Contact: As soon as opposing units come in contact -- their stands touch -- all movement ceases, and melee takes place. Any unit not already engaged in melee may move a maximum of 1" right or left in order to confront and contact an opposing unit attempting to bypass or flank the unit.

However you have some support in this also on Page 22.

QuoteWithdrawal from Melee: Only elite or guard units are able to withdraw from melee voluntarily. All other units must remain until victorious or defeated. Elite and guard units which opt for withdrawal must make a morale throw, and if they fail, their morale automatically drops one level. If they succeed, they may move back one-half move, facing the enemy. In the former case they take normal casualties and return casualties according to their lower morale level. In the latter case they inflict 10% normal casualties and receive none in return. Troops with a base movement rate at least 50% greater than their opponents can withdraw from melee at will with no penalty.

The problem with the above that while accurate in regards to organized formations OD&D is focused on individual combatants. And applying the above rule to individual melee combat especially with rounds being anywhere from 6 seconds to 1 minutes fly contrary to what I experienced while fighting in the SCA, boffer LARPS, and other medieval reenactments.

Everything about formation fighting makes perfect sense and I experienced most of what Chainmail talks about while fighting in a formation. But when a fight is a skirmish or only a handful of combatant are fighting on another, then it becomes a series of duels. In that situation, a BBEG ignoring a single fighter in front them is the more accurate ruling. There will be consequences but being forced to duel until one individual's morale broke or is killed is not one of them.

In case there is any confusion I consider 3.X and 5e approach just as artificial and unrealistic as what you are advocating.

As I stated often the rules are there as a tool and if the reality of the setting conflicts with the rules, then the referee should makes his ruling how it really should work not what written.

Quote from: estar;980455That is stated nowhere in RAW. Instead there is a consequence for moving away from one's enemy.

No, there's a consequence for moving away from combat, which is framed in terms of sides, not individual tokens. In AD&D, you may

Attack
Parry
Fall back
Flee

QuoteThen you are the same as the rule lawyers using 3.X or later editions. Letting the rules dictate what can and can't be done instead of what would actually happen if you really there fighting the battle.

Interpreting  the word "flee" to include "charging past the fighter to smack the wizard" is much more lawyerly than interpreting the language in a natural way.

QuoteIn your example there is no formation. Just two combatants engaged in combat with three other individual scattered about the room. There is no plausible reason to rule that the BBEG can't just move by the lone warrior and attack whomever he wants in the rear.

It's entirely plausible that if you're within fighting distance of someone, he'd be able to stop you from moving around behind him. Happens all the time in football. But aside from the plausibility, the problem is the RAW doesn't really comprehend the situation. The fact is there is no RAW at all for whether or not you can circle around behind somebody who's close enough to hit you, break off the attack, and go stab the guy 15 feet behind him.  Neither one of us is being "lawyerly," so much as we're disagreeing on how to apply the rules for a situation they weren't written for. The WotC editions do have rules for this, but I think they suck, especially at high level.

QuoteIt is the same way in D&D 5th edition. People complain about the bloated hit points but they forget the multiple attacks and higher amount of damage built into the system at higher levels.

You don't get multiple strikes on an opportunity attack in 5e. At low level, a Fighter's OA can easily kill a monster outright. At high level, they're an inconvenience at best. IMO that's a problem with high-level 5e. Only Paladins and Rogues have seriously threatening OAs.

QuoteLet's be through about this, In Chainmail 2nd edition on page 14 we have the following notes.

Okay, let me be really thorough, then. I'm imagining this kind of situation:

| |  |D|  |
| |  |  |  |
| |  |B|  |
| |  |   |  |
| |  |F|  |
| |C|   |  |
| |  |   |  |
| |  |W|  |


D = Door
B = BBEG
F = Fighter
C = Cleric
W = Wizard

If the BBEG wants to move around the fighter and attack the wizard, it sounds like Chainmail says the fighter can move to intercept, similarly if he tried to move around the cleric. That's the way I understand AD&D as well. Also, once the Fighter and the BBEG are engaged, the way I read AD&D, the BBEG's only movement options once engaged are to continue fighting or flee in the direction of the door, since it seems pretty obvious to me where the "Front" and "back" are. Do you disagree?

Interesting analysis Willie. I haven't played newer versions of D&D so I can't fairly comment on what tactics the rules in those editions reward. I'm also not arrogant enough to claim that older versions of D&D suck because they don't correspond to certain, ah,  contemporary playstyles.

You make the reasonable claim that many players who started playing D&D in the 80's wanted a more cinematic playstyle, but the rules did not reward that. So they probably houseruled. OK. But in the meantime, the industry that emerged in D&D's wake didn't really address that. The more important trend instead was towards greater "realism" and more rules density. Games became more complex and not necessarily more fun to play, YMMV. The new teenager demographic may not have all had a wargamer background, but they certainly wanted their splat!

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980439You don't get multiple strikes on an opportunity attack in 5e. At low level, a Fighter's OA can easily kill a monster outright. At high level, they're an inconvenience at best. IMO that's a problem with high-level 5e. Only Paladins and Rogues have seriously threatening OAs.

This seems to be a consequence of the decision to give some classes multiple, reasonable-damage-attacks and other classes a single, situationally-really-awesome attack like Sneak Attacks and Smites. What do you suppose happens if you gave a full, normal attack sequence for each OA?

The more rules they add, the worse the game plays.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478No, there's a consequence for moving away from combat, which is framed in terms of sides, not individual tokens. In AD&D, you may

Attack
Parry
Fall back
Flee

The actual rules state

QuoteBreaking Off From Melee:
At such time as any creature decides[/B}, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

That what AD&D RAW states.

Since we arguing on the basis of RAW, there is no prohibition written that says that a BBEG can't engage the fighter, decide to break off, make up to a full movement, stopping when the BBEG enters melee range of the Wizard. In short RAW AD&D is no better or worse than 3e or 5e in this regard.

If you want breaking off from melee to only used if the combatant is in a panicked state and not as a tactic that is your right as referee. But it is not supported by RAW and the plain meaning of the terms Gygax used. He wrote some dense text but is not one of them.  What is interesting there appears nothing that says explicitly AD&D that you stop movement one you become engaged in melee combat. Although it is obvious that what assumed.

Also it reasonable in RAW that that the first "step" of movement has to be to a point out of melee range otherwise the combatant trying to break becomes re-engaged.

My conclusion is that AD&D RAW doesn't support you interpretation of breaking off melee.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478Interpreting  the word "flee" to include "charging past the fighter to smack the wizard" is much more lawyerly than interpreting the language in a natural way.

First off you weren't specific as to which classic edition you were using but since we do now we can get specific. As stated above AD&D doesn't have a explicit rule but it is obviously implied by the text that once you entered melee range movement ceases. So you are correct to say that a BBEG can't charge past a lone fighter blocking his path. However the BBEG can break off the next round and continue to engage the fighter.

As for the plain meaning of flee, the good ol' bat dictionary has two

Flee could mean

Quote1) run away from a place or situation of danger.
or
2) run away from (someone or something).

And if the BBEG breaks off the next round he is certainly running away from that fighter.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478It's entirely plausible that if you're within fighting distance of someone, he'd be able to stop you from moving around behind him. Happens all the time in football.

Yes but we are talking about a minute melee round per RAW which is a hell of long time in football.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478But aside from the plausibility, the problem is the RAW doesn't really comprehend the situation.

You are forgetting that it been stated several times if the rules don't cover something or doesn't make sense, make a ruling in light of what you know. My view it is plausible for a BBEG to ignore the lone fighter in front him to go after the wizard. It may take a extra round and the BBEG will suffer a few hits but if the BBEG (or PC) feel the situation warrants it. The opposition has a problem with that, then they can just bloody well learn to work together in a formation or hire enough men at arms to form a formation.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478You don't get multiple strikes on an opportunity attack in 5e. At low level, a Fighter's OA can easily kill a monster outright. At high level, they're an inconvenience at best. IMO that's a problem with high-level 5e. Only Paladins and Rogues have seriously threatening OAs.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478Okay, let me be really thorough, then. I'm imagining this kind of situation:

(snip good diagram)

If the BBEG wants to move around the fighter and attack the wizard, it sounds like Chainmail says the fighter can move to intercept, similarly if he tried to move around the cleric. That's the way I understand AD&D as well. Also, once the Fighter and the BBEG are engaged, the way I read AD&D, the BBEG's only movement options once engaged are to continue fighting or flee in the direction of the door, since it seems pretty obvious to me where the "Front" and "back" are. Do you disagree?

First it is Breaking off Melee action not the Flee action.  Now that we specified AD&D I would adjudicate the sequence as

BBEG move the engage the Fighter

Fight a Round of Melee with the Fighter

BBEG breaks off moves to the Cleric and engages in Melee.

The Fighter gets a opportunity attack.

The Fighter gets to move and engage the BBEG.

The BBEG may get an attack if the distance to the cleric was less than half of the BBEG's move if you feeling generous. It would be reason to interpret Breaking off as the thing you do that round in lieu of an attack. It not clear how breaking off movement interacts with the rules about engaging in melee combat after movement.

Regardless the Cleric gets to attack.

Now it this point it starts to get high situational. If the party has a clue then the fighter would move in such a way that the BBEG can't break off and do a full move. At best the BBEG would be able to take a 10 foot step left or right. But if it doesn't work out that way then the following applies.

The BBEG break off melee.

Cleric gets a AoO
The Fighter gets a AoO

The BBEG moves and engages the Wizard again your call whether the BBEG get an attack this round.

The Cleric moves and engages the BBEG
The Fighter moves and engages the BBEG
Melee is resolved. And all three party members will definitely get a melee attack this round

Despite our disagreement about breaking off of mellee, my interpretation still means that it is going to be rough for the BBEG to attempt this. And not a "I win" plan. But may be the only logical course if getting the Wizard into melee range is that important.

And if the BBEG is sitting there alone with no guards and no defenses with his thumb up his ass, I STILL maintain he deserves to be butchered.

Gary assumed the players and ref were smart enough to shit unassisted.  This assumption has, sadly, proven to be inoperative.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980503And if the BBEG is sitting there alone with no guards and no defenses with his thumb up his ass, I STILL maintain he deserves to be butchered.

Bilbo: Hey what do I see?
Referee:A vast and lofty cavern filled with gold and treasure. And in its midst Smaug the Golden lies sleeping
Bilbo: Does have any guards?
Referee: No
Bilbo: Is Anybody else around? Does it have any defense?
Referee: Nope.
Bilbo: Well according to Gronan it deserved to be butchered so I kill it and take it's treasure.
Referee: Waaait a minute.....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1220[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980503And if the BBEG is sitting there alone with no guards and no defenses with his thumb up his ass, I STILL maintain he deserves to be butchered.

Gary assumed the players and ref were smart enough to shit unassisted.  This assumption has, sadly, proven to be inoperative.

So far as I can tell, no one has said otherwise. Fearsome pulled this BBEG out of thin air to create a scenario around which we can analyze how the rules work for keeping the enemies from swarming the magic user (in a scenario so contrived, he had the PCs call out "Ho there, evil foe!"). Who is it that you are still maintaining this position in opposition towards?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980515So far as I can tell, no one has said otherwise. Fearsome pulled this BBEG out of thin air to create a scenario around which we can analyze how the rules work for keeping the enemies from swarming the magic user (in a scenario so contrived, he had the PCs call out "Ho there, evil foe!"). Who is it that you are still maintaining this position in opposition towards?

They're still "white-rooming" an utterly ridiculous situation.  My point (and I do have one) is that a stupid statement should be ignored, not engaged with.

And if somebody actually said "Ho there, evil foe" in my group the game would end right there, because we'd all be laughing so hard we'd pass out.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980520They're still "white-rooming" an utterly ridiculous situation.  My point (and I do have one) is that a stupid statement should be ignored, not engaged with.

Y'know. I think I agree.
I am so used to forum-goers patting themselves on the back for being superior to nonexistent straw-bad-gamers, that I jumped to conclusions. My bad.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980521And if somebody actually said "Ho there, evil foe" in my group the game would end right there, because we'd all be laughing so hard we'd pass out.

I think my DM would have the evil lich villain narrow their eyes, squint (neither of which a lich ought to be able to do), glance down at their dry, desiccated crotch and say, "did...did you just call me a 'ho?'..."

Quote from: estar;980510Bilbo: Hey what do I see?
Referee:A vast and lofty cavern filled with gold and treasure. And in its midst Smaug the Golden lies sleeping
Bilbo: Does have any guards?
Referee: No
Bilbo: Is Anybody else around? Does it have any defense?
Referee: Nope.
Bilbo: Well according to Gronan it deserved to be butchered so I kill it and take it's treasure.
Referee: Waaait a minute.....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1220[/ATTACH]

And if, instead of one first level hobbit thief, it had been Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Glorfindel, Aragorn, and Boromir, it might have gone badly for Smaug.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980522I think my DM would have the evil lich villain narrow their eyes, squint (neither of which a lich ought to be able to do), glance down at their dry, desiccated crotch and say, "did...did you just call me a 'ho?'..."

Or be like Xykon, and just say, "Kid, who writes your dialogue?"