Rule of Three: 7/11

[Balesir]

I think it's pretty simple. Away from where the Fighter is standing in front of you... How is this confusing?

W ....... F x O --------------> This way is backward.

Provided all combatants line themselves up neatly, of course it's not confusing. The 5' and 10' corridors may have facilitated this in many cases, but it's not a "general case". What about this situation - are the moves of the two ogres/orcs/whatever to get at the Wizard "backwards" here?

x G x x B x G x
x F O x x C x x
O x E \ x x x x
x \ x x \ x x x
x x \---> W x x

O = ogre/orc, B = bugbear, F = fighter, C = cleric, W = Wizard, G = goblin, E = ettin.

Or, what about the ettin "south" of the orc to the right of the fighter going directly diagonal (south-east) to get to the Wiz? Or the bugbear going one step west (away from the cleric, with whom he's engaged) and then going south to get the Wiz?

Even without flying or swimming the battlefield is at least two dimensional - never mind when we add in a third (from climbing, tunnelling, swimming or flying).

This still occurs in 4E...

These are called risks and rewards. Tactics. If the Thief wants to get in on his backstab, by sneaking up behind the Ogre (and therefore blocking the ogre's retreat) then he's risking being hit. The same thing happens in 4E, except there's an added layer of complexity "I risk being hit, but the Ogre gets -2 to his attacks..."

Not if the defender is a fighter, no. It becomes "I risk being hit, but the ogre will be attacked by the fighter first - an attack which, if my backstab has already worked, the ogre may not survive - before it can attack me, which it will do at -2. All in all, it may be persuaded to either try to get away or to attack the fighter, first."

Wait. I thought this was about it being "easy" and "less complex"?

Well, it may have started out there, but my specific objection was to the idea that fighters in older editions could effectively do their "job" (which was already clear) of stopping enemies attacking other party members. The answer seems to me to be "they could in the very limited case where the terrain forced the enemy to line up to hit them, but in the general case, they could not without collusion from the monster player (i.e., usually, the DM)".

'Better' is a subjective term. Let's leave it to something we can measure. I think easy and complexity is pretty clearly on the side of the older editions, especially Basic D&D.

For complexity, Basic and OD&D have it, I think - although OD&D falls apart on "ease of use" because the confusion over combat systems early on was, well, confusing. On "fighters being able to meat shield", however, 4E seems to me to be clearly "better" than any earlier edition, since the fighter can do everything in this regard that s/he could do in earlier editions, plus be able to mark/combat challenge/combat superiority. Not to mention powers like "Come and Get It" to draw the monsters to them...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really like his answer on the powers! I agree...one million different ways to tie your shoes isn't doing anyone any favors, and is just paying developers to churn out powers.

There's another element to his article that I think is wonky, though:

Every 1e or 2e player knows that it's the job of the fighter to protect the wizard from getting attacked in melee, and it's the job of the cleric to keep the fighter on his feet.

In combat? Maybe.

But in a broader sense, it was the job of the fighter handle combat. It was the job of the wizard to avoid combat (or end it quickly) using spells. It was the job of the cleric to help when either one of them screwed up.

I think it's important to realize that characters are not limited to their combat definitions, but have broader roles in the overall adventure.