Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5879090" data-attributes="member: 87792">A fighter isn't even 5' wide.&nbsp; D&amp;D corridors tend to be 10' wide.&nbsp; Wilderness environments have all the space you could want.&nbsp;&nbsp; Without AoOs or sticky combat, the smart move would be to brush by the fighter and splat the person able to fireball all of you.&nbsp; There's not even a penalty for doing so.&nbsp;&nbsp;That is playstyle.&nbsp; Mages are seriously high priority targets in pre-4e (and still high priority in 4e).&nbsp; The threat of being fireballed is huge - and the wizard has far, far worse they can do than fireball.&nbsp;&nbsp;Parry, engage blades, step past, and charge the wizard.&nbsp; Not that hard if you have a 10' corridor and a couple of you.&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually, IME, the tactical geniusses are the ones likely to provoke.&nbsp; Especially in 4e with provoking enabling the defenders.&nbsp; Not provoking is doing the obvious thing and you need a reason to provoke.&nbsp;&nbsp;Those rules work without invoking DM fiat.&nbsp; However I consider them fundamentally disempowering.&nbsp; It reduces the fighter to a large sack of hit points, pounding away mano-a-mano with another large sack of hit points until either one retreats or one falls.&nbsp;Withdrawal just means you move backward slowly and can attack if they follow you. &nbsp;And this illustrates nicely why I find it disempowering unless there is an entire shieldwall involved (and I've seldom had an entire squad of minions working with me in D&amp;D even if it was common in OD&amp;D).&nbsp; In OD&amp;D as a fighter you needed to square up to the enemy and trade blows, Marquess of Queensbury Style for literally minutes at a time (but my issues with long turn lengths being disempowering are another matter entirely).&nbsp;You've taken footwork away from my fighter.&nbsp; You've taken minor shield barges.&nbsp; You've taken circling.&nbsp; Hell, one on one with sword and shield vs sword and shield when I was a reenactment fighter I could get through to the archer much of the time, covered from the swordsman by my own shield.&nbsp; (Passing shield to shield is safer than sword to sword but even sword to sword I can engage their blade with my own to buy time much more easily than either of us can hit).&nbsp;And it's far easier to pass a swordsman if I have sword and shield than to pass an offensive lineman.&nbsp; The lineman doesn't have to defend himself against my sword.&nbsp; He can effectively go on an all out attack to stop me.&nbsp; And he is - in American Football he doesn't need to worry about keeping himself alive.&nbsp; If I'm armed and trying to get past someone armed, he knows he'll take my sword to his guts (or worse) if he comes in the way a lineman does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5879090, member: 87792"] A fighter isn't even 5' wide. D&D corridors tend to be 10' wide. Wilderness environments have all the space you could want. Without AoOs or sticky combat, the smart move would be to brush by the fighter and splat the person able to fireball all of you. There's not even a penalty for doing so. That is playstyle. Mages are seriously high priority targets in pre-4e (and still high priority in 4e). The threat of being fireballed is huge - and the wizard has far, far worse they can do than fireball. Parry, engage blades, step past, and charge the wizard. Not that hard if you have a 10' corridor and a couple of you. Actually, IME, the tactical geniusses are the ones likely to provoke. Especially in 4e with provoking enabling the defenders. Not provoking is doing the obvious thing and you need a reason to provoke. Those rules work without invoking DM fiat. However I consider them fundamentally disempowering. It reduces the fighter to a large sack of hit points, pounding away mano-a-mano with another large sack of hit points until either one retreats or one falls. Withdrawal just means you move backward slowly and can attack if they follow you. And this illustrates nicely why I find it disempowering unless there is an entire shieldwall involved (and I've seldom had an entire squad of minions working with me in D&D even if it was common in OD&D). In OD&D as a fighter you needed to square up to the enemy and trade blows, Marquess of Queensbury Style for literally minutes at a time (but my issues with long turn lengths being disempowering are another matter entirely). You've taken footwork away from my fighter. You've taken minor shield barges. You've taken circling. Hell, one on one with sword and shield vs sword and shield when I was a reenactment fighter I could get through to the archer much of the time, covered from the swordsman by my own shield. (Passing shield to shield is safer than sword to sword but even sword to sword I can engage their blade with my own to buy time much more easily than either of us can hit). And it's far easier to pass a swordsman if I have sword and shield than to pass an offensive lineman. The lineman [I]doesn't have to defend himself against my sword[/I]. He can effectively go on an all out attack to stop me. And he is - in American Football he doesn't need to worry about keeping himself alive. If I'm armed and trying to get past someone armed, he knows he'll take my sword to his guts (or worse) if he comes in the way a lineman does. [/QUOTE]

Verification