D&D 5E Kobolds are also from the Feywild now?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

There is an entire thread on this site dedicated to talking about the First World and collecting all the information about it. Creating a new, official grand unified theory of D&D is going to matter to a fair number of people. For your sake, I'm happy for you that you're not among them and don't care about this.

But isn’t that just fans being fans? Heck I was doing that back in 2e too

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

There's a difference between relying on something and requiring it, which is also reflected in the difference between the rules preventing something and the rules facilitating something. That people can translate "The kobold shifts 1 square" into other terms, and some people do not find it an excessive burden in TotM play, does not change the fact that the design relies on a grid of squares, or that other people found it a burden.

Similarly, it is demonstrably possible to play D&D with descending AC and THAC0. And it's quite possible to translate those numbers into ascending AC and attack bonuses. But if 6th edition used descending AC and THAC0 throughout, it would be obvious that the designers were detached from the needs and desires of their audience.

I guess that I still disagree that 4e relied on a grid and minis as you put it. All that it relied on is understanding 1 square = 5 feet. Not all that different from 1e that measured movement in inches.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess that I still disagree that 4e relied on a grid and minis as you put it. All that it relied on is understanding 1 square = 5 feet. Not all that different from 1e that measured movement in inches.

Do you just remember where everyone is in relation to each other? Even with all the forced movement endemic to 4th edition? If so, that an impressive memory you've got.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Do you just remember where everyone is in relation to each other? Even with all the forced movement endemic to 4th edition? If so, that an impressive memory you've got.

We would do the best we can, just like we did in 1e. Sometimes we might jot down positions on a piece of paper, or arrange minis just on the table. But no grid needed. This is basically how he played in first edition. We just continued to play that way in fourth edition.

When you play TotM you are already accommodating that an distance is approximate. It really wasn’t hard to translate to 4e.

 

[Parmandur]

I guess that I still disagree that 4e relied on a grid and minis as you put it. All that it relied on is understanding 1 square = 5 feet. Not all that different from 1e that measured movement in inches.

It really pulls one out to think of abstract "spaces" rather than naturalistic real world measurements. Being so exact also created an expectation of precision from play.

I'm glad thst y'allhad fun with it, but the generally reported experience is that 4E combat took much, much longer to play out. And that's not most people's cup of tea, frankly, even among gamers. I'd rather play out multiple quick and dirty 5E combats I'm the time a single 4E encounter gets ground out. Or play Fire Emblem or Total War, for that matter, if I really feel tactical.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It really pulls one out to think of abstract "spaces" rather than naturalistic real world measurements. Being so exact also created an expectation of precision from play.

For some maybe, but it didn’t change anything for us. I guess if you started in 1e where things were measured in 1” = 10’ (IIRC), it wasn’t such a big change

I'm glad thst y'allhad fun with it, but the generally reported experience is that 4E combat took much, much longer to play out. And that's not most people's cup of tea, frankly, even among gamers. I'd rather play out multiple quick and dirty 5E combats I'm the time a single 4E encounter gets ground out. Or play Fire Emblem or Total War, for that matter, if I really feel tactical.

This is a completely different issue, and one we were not discussing. I do agree that 4e battles took longer, so we came up with some strategies to make them quicker. Some of which we still use today in our 5e game.

 

[Parmandur]

For some maybe, but it didn’t change anything for us. I guess if you started in 1e where things were measured in 1” = 10’ (IIRC), it wasn’t such a big change

This is a completely different issue, and one we were not discussing. I do agree that 4e battles took longer, so we came up with some strategies to make them quicker. Some of which we still use today in our 5e game.

It's all of a piece, though. 4E was q very clever Holistic design: which is why it is still used for the miniatures combat board game line.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It's all of a piece, though. 4E was q very clever Holistic design: which is why it is still used for the miniatures combat board game line.

I guess IME the game slowed down from decision paralysis and trying to maximize your actions. Those a separate from the movement/range based on “squares” we were talking about.

 

[Parmandur]

I guess IME the game slowed down from decision paralysis and trying to maximize your actions. Those a separate from the movement/range based on “squares” we were talking about.

Don't underbelly the coherence of the system: it worked together as a solid unit.

The problem was a lack of consideration of user desires: at least, that was Mearls post-mortem, and acting on that idea worked wonders.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Don't underbelly the coherence of the system: it worked together as a solid unit.

Sure. But the issues with either can be solved separately, that is my point. I can solve the issue with combat time regardless of whether or not I do any thing with the grid

i know because we did!