Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5189998" data-attributes="member: 48965">D'oh, I did mix the equivalencies up <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="(:" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; (:"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname="(:" />o Thanks MrMyth).&nbsp;&nbsp;I am not arguing for or against the &quot;brokeness&quot; of the CR system so this is irrelevant to my point, you keep bringing up how &quot;broken&quot; the CR system was but this has nothing to do with whether most DM's used multiple monsters in 3e or whether the encounters couls be created with tactical synergy between those monsters.&nbsp;&nbsp;How does this in any way determine whether encounters can be created with tactiucal synergy? You might prefer a game have these particular attributes but the lack of them does not mean a game can't have tactical synergy. &nbsp;For the record I think the Knight in PHB 2 had a mark and I am almost positive there were at least a few, admittedly rare, feats that allowed one to use forced movement. &nbsp;&nbsp;Eh, I would disagree with your final blanket sentence and instead say play to the desires of one's players. It can be hard to believe but some players could care less, or even dislike tactically intense combat when roleplaying, it truly does have it's advantages and disadvantages in it's current incarnation (and honestly I can't say I'm sold on every single combat having to be tactically interesting). Some would rather have the combat be more narrative or simulationist in how it happens. So while I am not saying you are always wrong in your generalization... you aren't always right either.&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm not arguing for a win over 4e. I'm saying one can create tactically interesting combat in 3e if they want. That is all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 5189998, member: 48965"] D'oh, I did mix the equivalencies up (:o Thanks MrMyth). I am not arguing for or against the "brokeness" of the CR system so this is irrelevant to my point, you keep bringing up how "broken" the CR system was but this has nothing to do with whether most DM's used multiple monsters in 3e or whether the encounters couls be created with tactical synergy between those monsters. How does this in any way determine whether encounters can be created with tactiucal synergy? You might prefer a game have these particular attributes but the lack of them does not mean a game can't have tactical synergy. For the record I think the Knight in PHB 2 had a mark and I am almost positive there were at least a few, admittedly rare, feats that allowed one to use forced movement. Eh, I would disagree with your final blanket sentence and instead say play to the desires of one's players. It can be hard to believe but some players could care less, or even dislike tactically intense combat when roleplaying, it truly does have it's advantages and disadvantages in it's current incarnation (and honestly I can't say I'm sold on every single combat having to be tactically interesting). Some would rather have the combat be more narrative or simulationist in how it happens. So while I am not saying you are always wrong in your generalization... you aren't always right either. I'm not arguing for a win over 4e. I'm saying one can create tactically interesting combat in 3e if they want. That is all. [/QUOTE]

Verification