Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3735551" data-attributes="member: 4937">Thanks for dropping in.&nbsp; I will endeavor not to ask any questions you can't answer, and if you don't want to say anymore, that's fine too.The problem I have with this is that if a third edition party had become separated and exposed, then its highly likely that the resulting four way encounter would involve alot of movement as the party tried to consolidate its position - and even more movement would probably be expended protecting party members that dropped.&nbsp; So, any special claim of dynamic movement is hard for me to swallow, especially since, if someone hadn't goofed, this whole fight would have likely occurred in some defensible bottleneck with the PC's using thier superior missile fire to force the monsters to come to them (the tactic generally employed by PC's I'm used to).&nbsp; In your opinion, in this one particular case, and without going into details, did the 4E rules make the movement a more attractive option than it would have been under 3.X edition rules, and if so, did it do so at the expense of realism or detail?&nbsp; Or, was it the case that the movement was a tactical responce to the situation that was largely independent of the rules system involved?&nbsp; I am not asking you how the rules accomplished this.&nbsp; Obviously, that's Mearls job to decide whether to answer that sort of question.PS: Just to be clear, I don't think that there is a right answer to this question.&nbsp; I'm just curious.&nbsp; If it works basically like 3rd in this situation, then that's a good thing because I like 3rd.&nbsp; If it is more dynamic than 3rd, that's a good thing, because I agree that combat can in some circumstances become too static in 3rd.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3735551, member: 4937"] Thanks for dropping in. I will endeavor not to ask any questions you can't answer, and if you don't want to say anymore, that's fine too. The problem I have with this is that if a third edition party had become separated and exposed, then its highly likely that the resulting four way encounter would involve alot of movement as the party tried to consolidate its position - and even more movement would probably be expended protecting party members that dropped. So, any special claim of dynamic movement is hard for me to swallow, especially since, if someone hadn't goofed, this whole fight would have likely occurred in some defensible bottleneck with the PC's using thier superior missile fire to force the monsters to come to them (the tactic generally employed by PC's I'm used to). In your opinion, in this one particular case, and without going into details, did the 4E rules make the movement a more attractive option than it would have been under 3.X edition rules, and if so, did it do so at the expense of realism or detail? Or, was it the case that the movement was a tactical responce to the situation that was largely independent of the rules system involved? I am not asking you how the rules accomplished this. Obviously, that's Mearls job to decide whether to answer that sort of question. PS: Just to be clear, I don't think that there is a right answer to this question. I'm just curious. If it works basically like 3rd in this situation, then that's a good thing because I like 3rd. If it is more dynamic than 3rd, that's a good thing, because I agree that combat can in some circumstances become too static in 3rd. [/QUOTE]

Verification