Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7140334" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.&nbsp; 5e doesn't have full attacks or full-round casting times (or full-round anythings, really), so if you don't have to choose between moving and acting - but, it also has relatively little reason to move, few forced-movement effects, and little benefit to positioning (and, run TotM, it encourages you to ignore/fudge positioning).&nbsp; So, your experience seems consistent with the presentations &amp; content of three rulesets in question.&nbsp;5e OAs are pretty meh - they consume your precious reaction, and they aren't provoked by much (particularly, not by ranged attacks or casting in melee, so the kind of gank-the-caster/protect-the-caster dynamics you'd sometimes get going back to the early days, is less noticeable), and they don't do anything beyond single-attack damage, which scales little compared to Extra Attack, cantrips &amp; spells.&nbsp; &nbsp;I've found 5e to be functionally as 'static' as 3e.&nbsp; There's more movement, but it's very often in the form of &quot;I move up to the next guy and attack,&quot; adding nothing much to the encounter - just part of the focus-fire routine.I've seen DMs adapt 3.5 or 4e grid use wholesale with fair results.&nbsp; Still not a lot of movement, though, outside of Cunning Action and similar monster abilities.&nbsp;Ordinary attacks already also allow you to move.&nbsp; &nbsp;You mean the wargaming aspect, then. ;P&nbsp; &nbsp;I find the opposite.&nbsp; Put out any sort of visual aid, and players will focus more on positioning.&nbsp; In the absence of that, you get - in addition to a lot more time spent describing and re-re-re-describing the scene and how it's changed since the last turn to every player, every turn - a lot of very meh declarations (keep attack the same one, attack the nearest/next one, etc).&nbsp; Blah as can be.&nbsp; Doesn't matter how evocatively you describe the area, either.(Yeah, go ahead, insult my players, you know you want to...)Of course, what can get players more descriptive in TotM is the carrot - if you often (but not too consistently) hand out advantage or lesser bonuses for such descriptions.&nbsp;There is that, too. The 'fast combat' goal is antithetical to the development of more dynamic combats.&nbsp;Yep, it's like everyone has the 'Pass Forward' fighter utility from 4e (which was a low-level, at-will, because it wasn't really super-useful, though I quite liked it in one or two builds).&nbsp; Unless you're tracking positing very carefully (and have added some rules to make it more important), though, it'll rarely make a difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7140334, member: 996"] Nod. 5e doesn't have full attacks or full-round casting times (or full-round anythings, really), so if you don't have to choose between moving and acting - but, it also has relatively little reason to move, few forced-movement effects, and little benefit to positioning (and, run TotM, it encourages you to ignore/fudge positioning). So, your experience seems consistent with the presentations & content of three rulesets in question. 5e OAs are pretty meh - they consume your precious reaction, and they aren't provoked by much (particularly, not by ranged attacks or casting in melee, so the kind of gank-the-caster/protect-the-caster dynamics you'd sometimes get going back to the early days, is less noticeable), and they don't do anything beyond single-attack damage, which scales little compared to Extra Attack, cantrips & spells. I've found 5e to be functionally as 'static' as 3e. There's more movement, but it's very often in the form of "I move up to the next guy and attack," adding nothing much to the encounter - just part of the focus-fire routine. I've seen DMs adapt 3.5 or 4e grid use wholesale with fair results. Still not a lot of movement, though, outside of Cunning Action and similar monster abilities. Ordinary attacks already also allow you to move. You mean the wargaming aspect, then. ;P I find the opposite. Put out any sort of visual aid, and players will focus more on positioning. In the absence of that, you get - in addition to a lot more time spent describing and re-re-re-describing the scene and how it's changed since the last turn to every player, every turn - a lot of very meh declarations (keep attack the same one, attack the nearest/next one, etc). Blah as can be. Doesn't matter how evocatively you describe the area, either. (Yeah, go ahead, insult my players, you know you want to...) Of course, what can get players more descriptive in TotM is the carrot - if you often (but not too consistently) hand out advantage or lesser bonuses for such descriptions. There is that, too. The 'fast combat' goal is antithetical to the development of more dynamic combats. Yep, it's like everyone has the 'Pass Forward' fighter utility from 4e (which was a low-level, at-will, because it wasn't really super-useful, though I quite liked it in one or two builds). Unless you're tracking positing very carefully (and have added some rules to make it more important), though, it'll rarely make a difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification