Combat Speculation

[Horacio]

.....oh my speculation was prettty good then....

Really good, I would say...

Please continue it

 

[WhatGravitas]

Hehe... as a video game, I'd hate such a game! Faaar too much button-mashing to change the stances, far to complex...

As a D&Dish game, with heavy reflavouring, as well as some reconsiderations (unlimited healing!?), I'd be more fun than scanning prepared spells for interesting stuff to cast, while not burning out.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

All of that was fabricated, you know.

No, no, no - no rationality must be allowed to interfere with Razz's hatred!

 

[shilsen]

No, no, no - no rationality must be allowed to interfere with Razz's hatred!

Aargh! You beat me to it!

By this point I'm beginning to think a full-frontal lobotomy won't interfere with Razz's hatred. But if I lived near him I'd be game to try

 

[Cevalic]

Stances? No. Especially if they just give fighters an ability that is the same a magic spell.

 

[Clavis]

No, no I would not. The problem I have is the people who said combat in editions pre-3e was just simply hit each other till dead. Those are the people who are unimaginative and have to have every option spelled out for them.

Combat mechanics are an abstract way of giving and receiving damage. A fellow I work with loves his 3.x monk and being able to snatch arrows out of the air. I told him we do that in our 2nd edition game as well. When asked how I explain that if an arrow misses an AC I tell the character to freely come up with a description on what happened.

One of my players likes when Aragorn bats aside the thrown dagger in the LotR movie. My characters don't require a feat to do so it's just simply if their AC is missed they are free to say that their character deflects the thrown dagger with his sword.

Simple

Bravo! I couldn't agree more. D & D combat was originally meant to be abstract, with the blanks filled in by the imaginations of the DM and players. I believe a good DM should be descriptive when running combats, and a good player should be awarded bonuses to their actions if they precisely describe them. If a player says "I attack", it represents an attack with no particular thought behind it. No bonus. If the player says "I swing my mace onto the creature's skull, yelling hymns of glory to the gods", the character will get at least a +1 bonus from me for the attack. Better than giving everybody spelled-out super-powers, IMHO, because it encourages thrilling role-playing.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes. None of the above is actually why I play D&D, which would be social / non-comabt character interaction, but it sounds like a good bit of fun (a first, I could see it getting repetitive and boring) and it gets me to the "good stuff" faster.

Based on the rumours, non-combat interactions might play out something like this as well, since all social interactions are now encounters.

 

[WarlockLord]

Clavis, nothing stops you from doing this in 4e.

As for the non-combat interactions, if they are all now encounters and give XP, my group will probably pay more attention to role-playing.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Aargh! You beat me to it!

By this point I'm beginning to think a full-frontal lobotomy won't interfere with Razz's hatred. But if I lived near him I'd be game to try

It's funny. At first, he was bringing up some good points and I was glad that there was someone taking the strong position against a new edition. Then he kind of lost focus and it all went downhill, and now I'm not sure if there's anyone credibly voicing the sober second thoughts and scepticism in the face of all the optimism about the new edition.

 

[JRR_Talking]

it does sound like a return to less rulebooks and more modules,

which is excellent if they are downloadable for the most paert from DDI and u can print as u please

john