Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8977606" data-attributes="member: 93670">It has to do with a grouping off 3.5 mechanics that had a big impact on tactical grid combat.&nbsp; If you look at 3.5 phb pg141 (tsble 8-2)<a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm" target="_blank"> actions in combat</a> you will see the individual bits.&nbsp; The specific ones are&quot;<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack" target="_blank">Full attack</a> Full round action that consumed your standard action &amp; move action but allowed a single 5 ft step in addition to your full attack chain.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"><a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack" target="_blank">Standard attack</a>.&nbsp; A standard action that does not inhibit your movement or move action but you only get one attack no matter how many your BaB might grant.</li>
</ul>Combined with movement through a threatened square with more than a 5ft step* it meant that melee (on both sides of the screen )were sticky with a wide impact from their positioning choices.&nbsp; Sure A could completely ignore B to go smash the squishies but doing so meant potentially taking a bunch of AoOs (it wasn't hard to <a href="https://dndtools.net/feats/players-handbook-v35--6/combat-reflexes--403/" target="_blank">get</a> multiple AoOs &amp; I'm sure there were more ways than that one) and only getting to make a single attack when you got to the soon to flee squishy.&nbsp; 5e got rid of that &amp; made it so AoOs were generally not a meaningful concern in tactical grid combat while a full attack chain could always be taken even with significant movement between each swing.&nbsp; The unarmed change feels like it's trying to generate that sort of impact on tactical combat choices but it's accomplishing that by dumping responsibility onto the GM&nbsp; to actively maintain an ideal they can't make solid use of rather than supporting the GM with a passive rule or set of rules to handle it automatically.&nbsp; They can't make use of it because if the GM had every monster lock down players all the time it would cause the GM to be called adversarial or something while such a thing is perfectly ok for players.* Later called &quot;shift&quot; in 4e</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8977606, member: 93670"] It has to do with a grouping off 3.5 mechanics that had a big impact on tactical grid combat. If you look at 3.5 phb pg141 (tsble 8-2)[URL='https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm'] actions in combat[/URL] you will see the individual bits. The specific ones are" [LIST] [*][URL='https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#fullAttack']Full attack[/URL] Full round action that consumed your standard action & move action but allowed a single 5 ft step in addition to your full attack chain. [*][URL='https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack']Standard attack[/URL]. A standard action that does not inhibit your movement or move action but you only get one attack no matter how many your BaB might grant. [/LIST] Combined with movement through a threatened square with more than a 5ft step* it meant that melee (on both sides of the screen )were sticky with a wide impact from their positioning choices. Sure A could completely ignore B to go smash the squishies but doing so meant potentially taking a bunch of AoOs (it wasn't hard to [URL='https://dndtools.net/feats/players-handbook-v35--6/combat-reflexes--403/']get[/URL] multiple AoOs & I'm sure there were more ways than that one) and only getting to make a single attack when you got to the soon to flee squishy. 5e got rid of that & made it so AoOs were generally not a meaningful concern in tactical grid combat while a full attack chain could always be taken even with significant movement between each swing. The unarmed change feels like it's trying to generate that sort of impact on tactical combat choices but it's accomplishing that by dumping responsibility onto the GM to actively maintain an ideal they can't make solid use of rather than supporting the GM with a passive rule or set of rules to handle it automatically. They can't make use of it because if the GM had every monster lock down players all the time it would cause the GM to be called adversarial or something while such a thing is perfectly ok for players. * Later called "shift" in 4e [/QUOTE]

Verification