Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 7941460" data-attributes="member: 93670">.Your argument assumes that tactical combat would be too complicated for a new player to gather organically, there is no evidence to suggest that is true just because 3.5 presented it in what could be considered a poorly arranged fashion of needing to look up any individual action along with any class/PrC features&nbsp; or feats that might change the action.&nbsp; Even wotc agreed that they could not entirely eliminate AoO's any more than they couldredice the number of saves &amp; feats to 1 or limit spells to one each level for each class (or less).&nbsp; The fact that they left in AoOs for ranged attacks in melee, moving away without disengage &amp; things like sentinel/warcaster proves that wotc believed they needed to at least pretend AoOs were a thing.Why do the customization options in the dmg like the multiple ones that involve positioning or changes to rest/recovery need to meet the need they present themselves for in isolation rather than need a bunch of extra homebrew work rebuilding 5e on the part of the gm?&nbsp; Seriously?...&nbsp; Those rules need to work in isolation because they present themselves as such while doing two problematic things.&nbsp; The first problematic thing is that they waste valuable page space that could have been devoted to a complete rule for something else.&nbsp; The second problem is that by pretending that the option is there with an incomplete option they make it more difficult to properly fix or complain about the omission without meeting &quot;&quot;butbut A rule exists, you just want the wrong thing&quot; as this &amp; other threads show.And yet they still bothered to waste pagespace on not one but two different variant rules that still don't meet the need they pretend to fill.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 7941460, member: 93670"] . Your argument assumes that tactical combat would be too complicated for a new player to gather organically, there is no evidence to suggest that is true just because 3.5 presented it in what could be considered a poorly arranged fashion of needing to look up any individual action along with any class/PrC features or feats that might change the action. Even wotc agreed that they could not entirely eliminate AoO's any more than they couldredice the number of saves & feats to 1 or limit spells to one each level for each class (or less). The fact that they left in AoOs for ranged attacks in melee, moving away without disengage & things like sentinel/warcaster proves that wotc believed they needed to at least pretend AoOs were a thing. Why do the customization options in the dmg like the multiple ones that involve positioning or changes to rest/recovery need to meet the need they present themselves for in isolation rather than need a bunch of extra homebrew work rebuilding 5e on the part of the gm? Seriously?... Those rules need to work in isolation because they present themselves as such while doing two problematic things. The first problematic thing is that they waste valuable page space that could have been devoted to a [I]complete[/I] rule for something else. The second problem is that by pretending that the option is there with an incomplete option they make it more difficult to properly fix or complain about the omission without meeting ""butbut [I]A [/I]rule exists, [I][U]you[/U][/I] just want the [I][B]wrong[/B][/I][B] thing[/B]" as this & other threads show. And yet they still bothered to waste pagespace on not one but two different variant rules that still don't meet the need they pretend to fill. [/QUOTE]

Verification