Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 9620126" data-attributes="member: 75787">While this is true, some systems make it much easier than others. For example, when I ran and AD&amp;D campaign, combat was pretty brief because there's not a ton of opportunity to work together so the teamwork factor was low. Mostly &quot;clear that space; fireball incoming&quot; or &quot;shoot the caster&quot; sort of stuff. The fun of playing AD&amp;D was more in the non-combat side.Playing and running 3.0 / 3.5 had even less teamwork, as martials and casters were effectively playing separate systems. You caster is deciding whether time stop, a delayed meteor swarm and a summons or two would be better than polymorphing self + familiar into nine-headed hydras, and the fighter is deciding how much power attack to use. For me, it's the worst D&amp;D version for feeling like you are part of a team. Combat took a while and was very much individual-oriented.4E had some flaws, but it's hard to argue that it didn't hit a high point of tactical team play. Players would set conditions on opponents for team-mates to use; reposition enemies so the mage could burst attack a group (nothing an elemental caster liked more than a fighter with 'Come and Get It'); give them free moves to get to safer or more threatening conditions; mark enemies to make casters safer, create difficult terrain to make a better front-line defense. So many options for teaming up.I still enjoy playing 4E (rarely) and PF2 (much more often) for this reason. Lots of combat options and fights are very different depending on who is on your team. The 5E I played feels much more akin to AD&amp;D -- you do your thing when your turn comes around, then wait to see if you get hit. Repeat. For those styles of games combat does feel more boring, as the OP suggests.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gorgon Zee, post: 9620126, member: 75787"] While this is true, some systems make it much easier than others. For example, when I ran and AD&D campaign, combat was pretty brief because there's not a ton of opportunity to work together so the teamwork factor was low. Mostly "clear that space; fireball incoming" or "shoot the caster" sort of stuff. The fun of playing AD&D was more in the non-combat side. Playing and running 3.0 / 3.5 had even less teamwork, as martials and casters were effectively playing separate systems. You caster is deciding whether time stop, a delayed meteor swarm and a summons or two would be better than polymorphing self + familiar into nine-headed hydras, and the fighter is deciding how much power attack to use. For me, it's the worst D&D version for feeling like you are part of a team. Combat took a while and was very much individual-oriented. 4E had some flaws, but it's hard to argue that it didn't hit a high point of tactical team play. Players would set conditions on opponents for team-mates to use; reposition enemies so the mage could burst attack a group (nothing an elemental caster liked more than a fighter with 'Come and Get It'); give them free moves to get to safer or more threatening conditions; mark enemies to make casters safer, create difficult terrain to make a better front-line defense. So many options for teaming up. I still enjoy playing 4E (rarely) and PF2 (much more often) for this reason. Lots of combat options and fights are very different depending on who is on your team. The 5E I played feels much more akin to AD&D -- you do your thing when your turn comes around, then wait to see if you get hit. Repeat. For those styles of games combat does feel more boring, as the OP suggests. [/QUOTE]

Verification