Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 4572261" data-attributes="member: 3400">I think a lot of people have understated (or underestimated) the interplay of the tactical choices that previous editions, particularly 3e, actually have and how satisfying they actually can be in a diverse and interesting party.In the Shackled City game I run, there are 3 characters built on tumbling and mobile melee (scout, dragon shaman, and swashbuckler) and two that you'd think were more toe-to-toe combatants (paladin, barbarian). But the paladin has a history of rolling low hit points, so he became more of a mobile charger as well, particularly after picking up enough bard levels to be able to cast swift fly. Had he not had variable hit points and not rolled low, he might have gone a more traditional route as a stand-up holy warrior.And the way we play, there tends to be a lot of mobility vs # of attacks choices that have to be made. Most of my NPCs aren't going to stand too much in one place - the barbarian (who happens to be a half-ogre) is far too scary. So my monsters are moving around a lot, as are the PCs. The swashbuckler is frequently trading off mobility with multiple attacks with her two-weapon fighting. And that often becomes an interesting choice as she tries to find ways to lead the monsters between herself as hammer and the barbarian as anvil.Now, I'll agree that keeping the game mobile and fluid has a lot to do with making combat particularly interesting. And I'll give 4e kudos for recognizing it. But by removing the choice of staying put and doing more damage vs moving and doing less damage, I think they've removed one of the really interesting tactical tradeoffs that combat games have. And you see it in plenty of other games too, not just D&D. Try to hit anything really effectively with a moving tank in Advanced Squad Leader or with a squad's advancing fire and you'll get the idea. Allowing players to have their cake and eat it too with respect to movement and damage removes the tradeoff of tactical position vs damage, leaving choices that I think a lot of us find less fulfilling in our game play.I'm not really trying to bash 4e here. I'm mainly trying to point out how the combat choices available in 3e were actually more interesting than a lot of people seemed to realize with the design of 4e. And the choices presented as the solution to the reputedly limited choices of 3e may turn out to be a lot less interesting in the long run than they initially appear (particularly so, it seems to me, as they blend together as variations of the same thing when unleashed against the embarassment of elite and solo monster hit point wealth).</blockquote>

Verification