Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8409766" data-attributes="member: 82106">Hmmmm, not sure I understand this one... Looking at 4e's rules there are a VARIETY of ways that "the orc and the fighter meet in the middle" can take place. One would be simply that the combat starts when the two sides are, say, 10 squares apart. If the fighter moves forward 6 squares and activates some power, or even just uses the Ready action, then the orc will move forward and they will meet -roughly- in the middle. This seems reasonable, and for whatever tactical reasons it could happen at almost any starting distance of more than 4 squares or so. Likewise the orc could move forward and ready an attack, or even a charge. There could be an off-turn power which could trigger too and allow one side to preempt some of the other's turn. The start of the fight could simply be NARRATED this way (4e fights could be initiated from any state), so the GM could simply say, the orcs see you and move forward in a RUSH! The PCs get good init rolls and leap forward, meeting them in combat (IE the GM simply positions the orcs roughly 3-10 squares in front of the PCs with the fiction being they are running forward).I really don't think there's any significant issue there. Obviously tactical considerations and available options at any given time may preclude or militate against a particular sort of action taking place. I guess I wonder why this is a problem? Something will happen! If the GM was dead set on a particular outcome, maybe that's more an issue with GM expectations vs what the game actually delivers. I mean, most sorts of tactical scenarios will eventually be thrown up in 4e combats, particularly if you play a pretty open-ended and dynamic style. I can agree though that, particularly MM1 monsters, often didn't pull off a 'shtick' very well. The mechanical representation of whatever their ability was just either didn't really work on the grid, or it was easily and obviously countered in a way that didn't seem super interesting or fictionally relevant. A lot of that kind of stuff was fixed with more polished monster design. So, for example a lot of MM1 lurkers kinda bite, but their MV rebuilds or replacements work like a charm! Finally, I think at least with 4e in particular, the game is really MEANT to be tactical, so that agenda might clash sometimes with 'big damn heroes' or whatever. Certain tactics just WORK, and that transcends the game too, like concentrating your attacks on one opponent, that's a universal tactic even in the real world.</blockquote>

Verification