Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="occam" data-source="post: 9580773" data-attributes="member: 39815">Multiple attacks is not the same as 3e's iterative attacks. Aside from the time-wasting low BAB on successive attacks, the main problem was the Full Attack requirement to use the iterative attacks, which locked down movement and turned combat into a boring slog. Note that neither 5e (nor 4e) requires a combatant to plant themselves in one spot in order to make multiple attacks.Nitpicky skill points are not the same as selecting trained/proficient skills in 4e/5e.Godawful feat proliferation is not the same as having feats. Count up how many feats were published for 3e (or 4e!) and compare that to 5e.No, LFQW does not exist in 5e as it does in 3e's problematic implementation.You seem to be making an effort to entirely miss the point of what people are saying in this thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="occam, post: 9580773, member: 39815"] [I]Multiple[/I] attacks is not the same as 3e's iterative attacks. Aside from the time-wasting low BAB on successive attacks, the main problem was the Full Attack requirement to use the iterative attacks, which locked down movement and turned combat into a boring slog. Note that neither 5e (nor 4e) requires a combatant to plant themselves in one spot in order to make multiple attacks. [I]Nitpicky[/I] skill points are not the same as selecting trained/proficient skills in 4e/5e. [I]Godawful feat proliferation[/I] is not the same as having feats. Count up how many feats were published for 3e (or 4e!) and compare that to 5e. No, LFQW does not exist in 5e as it does in 3e's problematic implementation. You seem to be making an effort to entirely miss the point of what people are saying in this thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification