Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 4620198" data-attributes="member: 44797">To me, in 3.5 edition, there is a wealth of character build options, which makes things feel less spammy.&nbsp; This is not a feature of the edition, but rather a feature of being around for a long time so that there are many splatbooks.&nbsp; 4th edition will get there.However, there are some things about previous editions that do help to avoid spamming attacks.&nbsp; The many various combat options (bull rush, charge, grapple, trip, sunder, disarm, and so on) actually get used in the games I play (and to a lesser degree, in the games I DM).&nbsp; So even someone who &quot;merely&quot; specializes in hitting things with an axe has a lot of options, and uses them.In addition, one of the things that the original post sorta outlawed was one of the very things that worked -- I think the original post said something like, &quot;except spellcasters, why is 3.x different?&quot;&nbsp; Well, spellcasters is why.&nbsp; In one campaign, I play a cleric.&nbsp; I can change my spells daily.&nbsp; I have had days of non-combat divination &amp; investigation spells (Zone of Truth, Speak with Dead, and so on).&nbsp; I have played a general with an army (Summon Monster, Spiritual Weapon, you get the idea).&nbsp; I could go on, but I won't, you understand.&nbsp; Things can get incredibly varied, and allowances for this one class alone can be huge.&nbsp; Add in any other class that can pick from a big list of spells (I think wizards &amp; druids fall into this category) and you've got huge variance for some spellcasting classes.&nbsp; That still happens in 4th edition, but with rituals and the embrace of classes that are built for spamming (such as the warlock) it's a little different.The real point is pre-3.x, though.Anyone who has seen the &quot;how to play old-school&quot; PDF knows that older editions encouraged inventiveness.&nbsp; For example, in 3rd edition and later, you might say to the DM, &quot;I leap down to attack with surprise and force!&nbsp; Do I get any advantage?&quot;&nbsp; And the DM might ask, &quot;Well, do you have the leap attack feat?&quot;&nbsp; And that's it, you have the feat or you don't.&nbsp; But in older editions, if you ask to do a leap attack the DM might say, &quot;That will take dexterity to coordinate the attack and combat experience to use the momentum to your advantage, so give me an ability check using dex, and if you make it, we'll determine the extra damage based upon your level.&quot;In other words, in older editions, you might just make things up as a matter of course, and your DM might just house-rule a possible system for doing it, on the fly, all the time.&nbsp; The fighter could just &quot;swing, swing, swing&quot; -- and I remember some players playing that way, and mostly disliking them.&nbsp; But there were players who took old-school gaming to the limit.&nbsp; They would look for advantages from the environment, advantages from other players, coordination and disruption, feinting and just about anything else that would give them an edge.&nbsp; It made combat creative and varied.I remember one fighter liked to knock things with his sword, and leave marks (like Zorro leaving a Z).&nbsp; So in the course of battle, he would flick his sword toward a box on a table, or toward fruit hanging on a tree, and then send the item hurling toward the enemy.&nbsp; It was never intended to do damage, but the DM (ahem, me) would award itty bitty bonuses such as, &quot;that distracts the enemy for a split second, the next player attacking gets +1.&quot;&nbsp; These things were fun and full of character.&nbsp; While I love my 3.5 books, I kinda miss the old featless systems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aboyd, post: 4620198, member: 44797"] To me, in 3.5 edition, there is a wealth of character build options, which makes things feel less spammy. This is not a feature of the edition, but rather a feature of being around for a long time so that there are many splatbooks. 4th edition will get there. However, there are [i]some[/i] things about previous editions that do help to avoid spamming attacks. The many various combat options (bull rush, charge, grapple, trip, sunder, disarm, and so on) actually [i]get used[/i] in the games I play (and to a lesser degree, in the games I DM). So even someone who "merely" specializes in hitting things with an axe has a lot of options, and uses them. In addition, one of the things that the original post sorta outlawed was one of the very things that worked -- I think the original post said something like, "except spellcasters, why is 3.x different?" Well, spellcasters is why. In one campaign, I play a cleric. I can change my spells daily. I have had days of non-combat divination & investigation spells (Zone of Truth, Speak with Dead, and so on). I have played a general with an army (Summon Monster, Spiritual Weapon, you get the idea). I could go on, but I won't, you understand. Things can get incredibly varied, and allowances for this one class alone can be huge. Add in any other class that can pick from a big list of spells (I think wizards & druids fall into this category) and you've got huge variance for some spellcasting classes. That still happens in 4th edition, but with rituals and the embrace of classes that are [i]built for spamming[/i] (such as the warlock) it's a little different. [SIZE="5"]The real point is pre-3.x, though.[/SIZE] Anyone who has seen the "how to play old-school" PDF knows that older editions encouraged inventiveness. For example, in 3rd edition and later, you might say to the DM, "I leap down to attack with surprise and force! Do I get any advantage?" And the DM might ask, "Well, do you have the leap attack feat?" And that's it, you have the feat or you don't. But in older editions, if you ask to do a leap attack the DM might say, "That will take dexterity to coordinate the attack and combat experience to use the momentum to your advantage, so give me an ability check using dex, and if you make it, we'll determine the extra damage based upon your level." In other words, in older editions, you might just make things up as a matter of course, and your DM might just house-rule a possible system for doing it, on the fly, all the time. The fighter [i]could[/i] just "swing, swing, swing" -- and I remember some players playing that way, and mostly disliking them. But there were players who took old-school gaming to the limit. They would look for advantages from the environment, advantages from other players, coordination and disruption, feinting and just about anything else that would give them an edge. It made combat [i]creative[/i] and varied. I remember one fighter liked to knock things with his sword, and leave marks (like Zorro leaving a Z). So in the course of battle, he would flick his sword toward a box on a table, or toward fruit hanging on a tree, and then send the item hurling toward the enemy. It was never intended to do damage, but the DM (ahem, me) would award itty bitty bonuses such as, "that distracts the enemy for a split second, the next player attacking gets +1." These things were [i]fun[/i] and full of character. While I love my 3.5 books, I kinda miss the old featless systems. [/QUOTE]

Verification