Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7959088" data-attributes="member: 93670">Problem with that line of reasoning is that system differences aside, the gaping voids built into 5e is that3.5 &amp; 4e were much smore similar to each other in terms of things like support for tactical combat on a grid, the presence subjectivity in equipment, &amp; the presence of significant varied choice during character advancement.For 5e wotc just said &quot;complicated bad&quot;, made a list of everything anyone ever said may have been complicated with very little if any consideration to what benefits those things provide, &amp; wrote the system in ways that make it excessively difficult to put many of those things back in. People are arguing both 3.5 and 4e against some of 5e's half baked failings because both of those systems provide ample evidence for why some of those failings should have been entirely predictable&nbsp; and rather inexcusable.&nbsp; Resorting to &quot;but 3e is different from 4e&quot; lines of reasoning is a poor choice when they both contain an example of&nbsp; similarly functioning tactical combat systems that 5e left on the cutting room floor early on.Given your professed inexperience with how tactical combat worked in some&nbsp; past editions &amp; <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-simple-flanking-rule-what-do-you-think.671370/post-7958967" target="_blank">musings</a> on removing the few remaining&nbsp; AoOs in 5e over problems created or exacerbated by the lack of AoO supported tactical combat I'd like to suggest that your seeming position of 5e AoOs are <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=this+is+fine&amp;rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS859US859&amp;sxsrf=ALeKk023LQTlVxexV3CEtxsSYOJjHaBAVA:1586288192845&amp;tbm=isch&amp;source=iu&amp;ictx=1&amp;fir=j5c-teInJp10mM%253A%252CwYV6VDteAJGBHM%252C_&amp;vet=1&amp;usg=AI4_-kR6ab1WueKixk6oWP8y5licinhqMw&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjJrvuBiNfoAhVHdt8KHX8GAg0Q9QEwAHoECAkQMA#imgrc=j5c-teInJp10mM:" target="_blank">fine</a> because 5e is different from past editions might be somewhat&nbsp; internally inconsistent or worse.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7959088, member: 93670"] Problem with that line of reasoning is that system differences aside, the gaping voids built into 5e is that3.5 & 4e were much smore similar to each other in terms of things like support for tactical combat on a grid, the presence subjectivity in equipment, & the presence of significant varied choice during character advancement. For 5e wotc just said "complicated bad", made a list of everything anyone ever said may have been complicated with very little if any consideration to what benefits those things provide, & wrote the system in ways that make it excessively difficult to put many of those things back in. People are arguing both 3.5 [I]and[/I] 4e against some of 5e's half baked failings because both of those systems provide ample evidence for why some of those failings should have been entirely predictable and rather inexcusable. Resorting to "but 3e is different from 4e" lines of reasoning is a poor choice when they both contain an example of similarly functioning tactical combat systems that 5e left on the cutting room floor early on. Given your professed inexperience with how tactical combat worked in some past editions & [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-simple-flanking-rule-what-do-you-think.671370/post-7958967']musings[/URL] on removing the few remaining AoOs in 5e over problems created or exacerbated by the lack of AoO supported tactical combat I'd like to suggest that your seeming position of 5e AoOs are [URL='https://www.google.com/search?q=this+is+fine&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS859US859&sxsrf=ALeKk023LQTlVxexV3CEtxsSYOJjHaBAVA:1586288192845&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=j5c-teInJp10mM%253A%252CwYV6VDteAJGBHM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kR6ab1WueKixk6oWP8y5licinhqMw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJrvuBiNfoAhVHdt8KHX8GAg0Q9QEwAHoECAkQMA#imgrc=j5c-teInJp10mM:']fine[/URL] because 5e is different from past editions might be somewhat internally inconsistent or worse. [/QUOTE]

Verification