Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8081481" data-attributes="member: 93670">[USER=7015698]@Undrave[/USER]&nbsp; you make a good case for why ranged combat should probably be&nbsp; going back to range increments that put them much closer to the action so they can't just ignore the tactical stuff &amp; include the tools that melee types needed to keep the risky prickly action away... but not for failing to include the tactical component.&nbsp; If you don't like having tactical grid rules in your game you can simply tell your players they won't be used or beg your gm not to use them, the same can not be done if the rules are not written into the system.&nbsp;I count five, it seems like you are splitting hairs trying to pretend something simple is complicated in order to argue a weak position.&nbsp; Do you think that mounting &amp; dismounting are so different that they need to be remembered separate rather than just mounting or dismounting even though phb198 lists the rule for both as a single sentence*?&nbsp; Object interactions should be a pretty straightforward &quot;Yea it probably provokes&quot; rather than 5e's&nbsp; pointless &quot;Here are twenty one bullet point items on phb190 you can do without using an action that don't provoke an AoO even though some of them used to take multiple actions and provoke multiple AoOs so tell your gm it's badwrongfun if they dare try to put meaningful AoOs back in because we carelessly cut it so hard it causes problems elsewhere&quot;. &nbsp;As to number 1 specifically that is one of the areas where the 5e team inexcusably screwed up rather than just adding an optional rule to ignore it that worked.&nbsp; It's extremely obvious how badly slapdash the removal of the badwrongfun AoO supported tactical grid stuff from 5e was once you start looking because you have nonsense like the rare handy haversack that is worse than the uncommon bag of holding after simply stripping the AoO related function from it &amp; not changing anything along with the dmg including multiple rules spanning a significant chunk of dmg 251/252 that fail at even pretending to fill the missing structure.&nbsp;.* &quot;Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8081481, member: 93670"] [USER=7015698]@Undrave[/USER] you make a good case for why ranged combat should probably be going back to range increments that put them much closer to the action so they can't just ignore the tactical stuff & include the tools that melee types needed to keep the risky prickly action away... but not for failing to include the tactical component. If you don't like having tactical grid rules in your game you can simply tell your players they won't be used or beg your gm not to use them, the same can not be done if the rules are not written into the system. I count five, it seems like you are splitting hairs trying to pretend something simple is complicated in order to argue a weak position. Do you think that mounting & dismounting are so different that they need to be remembered separate rather than just mounting or dismounting even though phb198 lists the rule for both as a single sentence*? Object interactions should be a pretty straightforward "Yea it probably provokes" rather than 5e's pointless "Here are twenty one bullet point items on phb190 you can do without using an action that don't provoke an AoO even though some of them used to take multiple actions and provoke multiple AoOs so tell your gm it's badwrongfun if they dare try to put meaningful AoOs back in because we carelessly cut it so hard it causes problems elsewhere". As to number 1 specifically that is one of the areas where the 5e team inexcusably screwed up rather than just adding an optional rule to ignore it that worked. It's extremely obvious how badly slapdash the removal of the badwrongfun AoO supported tactical grid stuff from 5e was once you start looking because you have nonsense like the rare handy haversack that is worse than the uncommon bag of holding after simply stripping the AoO related function from it & not changing anything along with the dmg including multiple rules spanning a significant chunk of dmg 251/252 that fail at even pretending to fill the missing structure. .* "Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed" [/QUOTE]

Verification