Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8189266" data-attributes="member: 82106">It is an interesting thesis, but I'm not sure I follow you. 5e movement rates are basically the same as 4e (or AFAIK 3.x too). I also don't think 5e's movements are really more 'independent of the action economy' than 4e's. They mucked up the concept of 'actions' for whatever unknown reason, but that's just a terminology thing. Yes, you can attack in the midst of a move, but there were a lot of ways to effectively do that in 4e also, granting they weren't always desirable tactics. And then, that all being said, why would that 'decrease the dynamism of combat'? I mean, the thing IMHO which does that, if anything does, is the sheer fact that there is very little in the way of tactical incentives to move around in 5e, and it takes a few rounds to kill anything (certainly anything that is at all a real threat). Since focusing damage on one target at a time is always logically favored, movement really isn't. The lack of a 'shift' option doesn't help (by vanilla 5e rules you are pretty much forced to take an OA if you move out of reach of any opponent, unless you forgo your attack for that round and disengage). So, I agree 5e lacks the mobility tools of 4e, generally, but it is more a matter of specific things being missing vs some fundamental difference in movement or attacks. In fact my Battlemaster in 5e could quite easily 'kite' using the right maneuvers combined with 5e's movement rules. It just wouldn't gain him anything...</blockquote>

Verification