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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 5741438" data-attributes="member: 23977">Maybe, All I can say is that I've seen people skip attacking since waitinf for their next turn isn't too long. Maybe I play at less hardcore tables then you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />  My point being that there is something to the less time to wait means less idea of "wasted" action.It's just more of the same for 4e. There are powers and options only certain people can take, and only certain people can do if you have the power/option.Again I think you're also thinking in it's 4e but with actions lopped off.Who knows if when doing this they also change the powers so there are "universal" powers that anyone can choose.I think you're being a little too specific here. The idea is the basic idea that chess gives you one thing each turn. You can't decide to jump over someone without "attacking" for instance so in my eyes it's one thing.This can translate to like charge... it's one action but you move/attack.Again depends on powers and such in my opinion. There are a bunch of different ways they could change this... forced movement, powers that grant bonuses when you move on the previous round, charges, your foe just moved away, etc.Yeah again D&D and chess aren't equal, but my point was there is still tactics desoite only having 1 basic move at a time. I don't believe they're inevitable... I also don't think you can determine the inevitability based on this article. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />So in my eyes you're looking at the negatives and assuming they will be the true scenarios.I don't think it's meaningless, or that you'd have to make as many changes as you seem to think.I like discussing hypoteticals- I just don't like it when those hypocriticals are immediately shot down by someone unwilling to think of anything but negatives as the ONLY possibility. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /></blockquote>

Verification