Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7959131" data-attributes="member: 93670">The opening bolded bit of your post invalidates everything else that comes after it.&nbsp; Wotc realized that tactical combat was important to a complete game and included a rather sizable chunk of pagespace to a pair of bad faith efforts that only serve to highlight the disdain for it built into 5e,[spoiler=&quot;Specifically&quot;][ATTACH=full]120710[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]120711[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]120714[/ATTACH][/spoiler]That whole section is written as if those rules are isolated unrelated things rather than part of a whole unified system or subsystem of the game.&nbsp; Instead of fleshing out that system they wrote around two thirds of a page for this design outline for a video game[spoiler=&quot;perfect for a cpu&quot;][ATTACH=full]120715[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]120716[/ATTACH][/spoiler]But a living breathing gm is very different than a computer so they continued that badwrongfun view of tactical combat and tried to make the speed factor computer game outline into a more robust system with <a href="https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/greyhawk-initiative" target="_blank">these five freaking pages</a>.&nbsp; Since your resorting to popularity, there is no question that the response that particular UA was... less than enthusiastic when it got released.It's great that the tactical void of 5e &quot;works&quot; for you, but when it works so well that your <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-simple-flanking-rule-what-do-you-think.671370/post-7958967" target="_blank">thinking of removing it</a>.&nbsp; That calls into question if the incomplete system works in a constructive way and why you seem to be arguing that ignoring a completed tactical combat system would not also work for you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7959131, member: 93670"] The opening bolded bit of your post invalidates everything else that comes after it. Wotc realized that tactical combat was important to a complete game and included a rather sizable chunk of pagespace to a pair of bad faith efforts that only serve to highlight the disdain for it built into 5e, [spoiler="Specifically"] [ATTACH type="full"]120710[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]120711[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]120714[/ATTACH][/spoiler] That whole section is written as if those rules are isolated unrelated things rather than part of a whole unified system or subsystem of the game. Instead of fleshing out that system they wrote around two thirds of a page for this design outline for a video game [spoiler="perfect for a cpu"] [ATTACH type="full"]120715[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]120716[/ATTACH][/spoiler] But a living breathing gm is very different than a computer so they continued that badwrongfun view of tactical combat and tried to make the speed factor computer game outline into a more robust system with [URL='https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/greyhawk-initiative']these five freaking pages[/URL]. Since your resorting to popularity, there is no question that the response that particular UA was... less than enthusiastic when it got released. It's great that the tactical void of 5e "works" for you, but when it works so well that your [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-simple-flanking-rule-what-do-you-think.671370/post-7958967']thinking of removing it[/URL]. That calls into question if the incomplete system works in a constructive way and why you seem to be arguing that ignoring a completed tactical combat system would not also work for you. [/QUOTE]

Verification