Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5742291" data-attributes="member: 22424">Experience. If that is the way the world works, they will know it. And so they'll know that the guy who closes for the fight loses.If this isn't the way the world works, but it is the way that the rules work, then the model used by the rules is rubbish and needs revision.(An analogy would be the situation with the high level character who is happy to throw himself off a cliff, secure in the knowledge that he can't die from the fall. If you want players to take that threat seriously, there must be at least a chance of it being a serious threat.)There won't be a move to melee. The two sides will each set up a defensive screen, and then slug it out with ranged attacks. Whichever side loses their ranged attacks first loses - they either retreat or die.The D&D combat system is already quite ridiculous with it's fixed-to-grid movement and especially with its discrete actions followed by several minutes of idly waiting for your next go. Removing move-and-attack as an option just adds yet another absurdity.Mostly, though, I object because Monte's columns seem to be intent on fiddling around with bits of the rules that are just fine (in either 3e or 4e), while ignoring the genuine problems in the system (again, both editions have weaknesses). I would be happy to welcome a good 5e; at the moment, it looks like we're just going to get a 5e.</blockquote>