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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5979602" data-attributes="member: 22779">I think the OP does make something of a good point though.In AD&D and 3e, moving was discouraged.  You took free hits if you backed out of combat (by and large) and in 3e you lost attacks.  This applies equally to PC's and critters as well.  If I've got 3 attacks, moving costs me two of them, drastically reducing my effectiveness.  For that to be a good choice, I have to gain at least as much as I've lost.And, most of the time, you didn't.  Losing two attacks, from a monster's point of view, just to take a single attack at another target was generally a poor idea, particularly when he's on the receiving end of additional attacks.  Tony Vargas points out how certain fighter builds made it even less attractive to move in combat.Did we see choke point fights in 4e?  Of course we did.  It's a good tactic and it makes sense.  I've seen it from both ends - baddies blocking us or us blocking the baddies.  But, the choice was always something that made sense in the game.  We didn't move because it made sense not to move.In 3e, particularly, the choice to not move was almost always a meta-game choice.  I can move and make one attack or I can stay here and make three (or more) attacks.  Other than 5 foot shifts, once targets got engaged, they stayed that way.I have to admit, 4e is the first time I've ever seen a highly mobile fight in D&D and I like it.  Even 3e classes that were built for mobility like the Scout, still were far less effective than a straight up Rogue at higher levels.  Sure, you got to move and make one sneak attack.  The rogue, though, usually got to make two or three sneak attacks if he set it up right.I have to admit, I hope that 5e does keep the level of mobility of 4e.  I like that level of tactical thinking in the game.</blockquote>

Verification