Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dragoslav" data-source="post: 6079265" data-attributes="member: 6690267">That's not my attitude at all. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> As I said later in my post, I want 5e to be able to handle multiple playstyles, so I don't think that facing should be excluded from an optional rules set just because I don't like it anymore than I think people should advocate for the exclusion of 4e powers like &quot;Come and Get It&quot; just because they don't like it*. I don't mean to imply that there shouldn't be options for facing; my sardonicism only derives from early comments by DDN developers along the lines of &quot;For people who loved 4e, we want to include systems for tactical combat, like rules for facing!!!11&quot; Those comments made me skeptical that the devs 1) were serious about getting 4e fans on board, and/or 2) knew what it was about 4e that made it strike a chord with its fanbase.Hence, I'm not against having facing as an element within the optional tactical combat module. I'll just be disappointed if the elements that are meant to replicate 4e-style play are limited to fiddly mechanical bits like facing. I know that we're still a long way off from seeing these advanced-level optional modules in any concrete form, so I'll naturally reserve my final judgment until then and in the meantime continue to harbor skepticism whenever the topic comes up. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />*(And now that someone has spoken the abominable phrase &quot;Come and Get It,&quot; commence 10-page discussion on validity of said power)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dragoslav, post: 6079265, member: 6690267"] That's not my attitude at all. :) As I said later in my post, I want 5e to be able to handle multiple playstyles, so I don't think that facing should be excluded from an optional rules set just because I don't like it anymore than I think people should advocate for the exclusion of 4e powers like "Come and Get It" just because they don't like it*. I don't mean to imply that there shouldn't be options for facing; my sardonicism only derives from early comments by DDN developers along the lines of "For people who loved 4e, we want to include systems for tactical combat, like rules for facing!!!11" Those comments made me skeptical that the devs 1) were serious about getting 4e fans on board, and/or 2) knew what it was about 4e that made it strike a chord with its fanbase. Hence, I'm not against having facing as an element within the optional tactical combat module. I'll just be disappointed if the elements that are meant to replicate 4e-style play are limited to fiddly mechanical bits like facing. I know that we're still a long way off from seeing these advanced-level optional modules in any concrete form, so I'll naturally reserve my final judgment until then and in the meantime continue to harbor skepticism whenever the topic comes up. ;) *(And now that someone has spoken the abominable phrase "Come and Get It," commence 10-page discussion on validity of said power) [/QUOTE]

Verification