Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3897853" data-attributes="member: 48965">So it doesn't make a combat more dependant on a battlemat and minis if you add more game effects and abilities based upon using them...Let's say I can wing one or two fireballs...do I need a battlemat more or less if they go off simultaneously in different areas, or if they go off and I have a doomspore that one of the PC's interact with and 20 goblins running around.  Is the mechanic for a doomspore more dependant on a battlemat than a fireball? No.  That doesn't mean the more types of these effects added into play can't make combat more dependant on battlemats.  Solving a simple arithmetic problem can be done in a few seconds, adding up 50 of these takes longer.  Are the base problems any harder?  No, but it still bogs you down.IMHO it gets kind of ridiculous when certain terrain is matched up with monster types, but your right...they do suggest using it in such a way.  This however still doesn't address the issue of players with different resistances.I guess I just don't subscribe to complexity ="more fun"...especially as a DM.  Been there and done that with D&D 3.5 and this looks no better.  Keep complexity for those running one PC, you streamline monsters abilities and then give me a freakin piece of terrain that requires numerous steps throughout the entire combat to adjudicate, (probably harder to keep track of than the actual monsters the PC's are fighting).  Bet 5.0 will be talking about how this was a really good idea at first...but the implementation was tedious and slowed down play.  But then again, we'll see won't we.</blockquote>

Verification