NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Don Durito" data-source="post: 8303481" data-attributes="member: 6687260">5e has some tactical elements - it would be unplayable it if didn't given how long combat takes.  Most of the decisions are basically just about how to use resources, although depending on how the battlefield is set up there may be more tactical decisions to make - eg, where to place a wall of fire.Martial characters tend to have less, but even then...A Fighter with Shield Master and Sentinel has options like shoving someone so that they're next to another enemy and then moving after them to lock both enemies down.4e had more tactical options of course, but it also took longer to resolve.  What both editions have in common is that they're much more tactically interesting in a well designed battlefield.  4e combat in a featureless room, wasn't really all that.I played a lot of 4e though, and I feel it's tactical depth is somewhat overrated (althogh granted there's more to it than 5e - the greater speed of resolution in 5e is also overrated though).  What both editions have in common is that the more important decisions are made in character creation and advancement.  Both games are far more strategic than tactical*.  (4E had vastly more strategic depth than 4e - in that there were a lot more elements to combine and builds to try out) Bringing out tactical depth requires work from the GM to design interesting tactical encounters.*In some respects 5e is actually more flexible here.  In 4e you're stuck with three different encounter powers you can only use once, but if a Battlemaster finds himself fighting enemies on the edge of the cliff he can spam Pushing Attack for this combat and then not use it all for the next two combats.</blockquote>

Verification