Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4498760" data-attributes="member: 66434">3.X crossed that line by quite a bit.  I remember using battle maps and minis for AD&D combats 20 or more years ago and they were fun to use and helped see at a glance who was in melee, if you could see around a corner, who got caught in the fireball, ect. The focus of the play at the table stayed on describing the action and roleplaying during combat.  We were not so impressed with 2nd ED and played a lot of GURPS during that era. GURPS advanced combat is very detailed and involved. During fight scenes we were very focused on the tactical map and combat maneuvers. It became all about the board, and positioning. The GURPS system is a great gritty machine but a little too detailed for casual D&D style action. When 3rd Ed was released we decided to give D&D another go. At first we were very mini/map focused because of learning the rules. As time went on the map focus stayed with us. The rules for flanking, AOO's and other fidgety rules kept us and our attention firmly on the map. Having just finished a decade of GURPS made the map focus seem a bit less intrusive but it was there.  4E has taken the map focus from 3.X and cranked it up several notches with the addition of push, pull, slide, teleport,.................. I have come to the conclusion that among other things that bug me about the 4E system, the detailed combat action is not what I want. For me, a fight with a half dozen normal kobolds should not take the better part of an hour or more. If a game session is going to be combat focused I prefer being able to run 6-8 moderate combat encounters in a session. The only way that happens is fast and loose action and simple combat resolution mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification