Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8168242" data-attributes="member: 12731">The d20 system was a great game for it's time. Remember that it had AD&amp;D as its predecessor.But its dichotomy between standard and full attacks just weren't a good solution. It heavily encouraged heroes and monsters to stand still and just duke it out. Static fights look and feel boring, predictable.It's actually the one thing 4E did right. The way many powers gave you both an attack AND movement meant that players went &quot;since I get to move for free why not move, can't waste a freebie&quot;. Which is good for the game - dynamic fights look and feel exciting, unpredictable.I'm not really slagging d20 here. It assumed movement would be considered just as valuable as attacks. This didn't pan out but at least they tried. (WFRP2 lifted its fundamental combat framework straight from d20 and suffers from the exact same issue)5E solve this issue, by not asking players to choose between movement and damage output. You get both. (Important: you can't convert the movement into bonus damage, which would only have brought us back to square one. The movement must be absolutely free, no strings attached!)PF2 kinda gets a pass even though it still asks you to spend an action you could have used on attacking, in order to move. The attack is penalized, many monsters sport impressive ACs, and moving feels more valuable in a game where being outnumbered or flanked gets you killed. (Meaning that if every combat were easy you wouldn't feel compelled to use movement; it's the difficulty that saves PF2). Wisely the game doesn't pile onto the already-high cost of movement by giving attacks of opportunity to every monster (to finally get back to the topic discussed...)Above opinions based on extensive play experience with every game mentioned. Yes, I've really played AD&amp;D, 3E, WFRP2, 4E, 5E, and PF2.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8168242, member: 12731"] The d20 system was a great game for it's time. Remember that it had AD&D as its predecessor. But its dichotomy between standard and full attacks just weren't a good solution. It heavily encouraged heroes and monsters to stand still and just duke it out. Static fights look and feel boring, predictable. It's actually the one thing 4E did right. The way many powers gave you both an attack AND movement meant that players went "since I get to move for free why not move, can't waste a freebie". Which is good for the game - dynamic fights look and feel exciting, unpredictable. I'm not really slagging d20 here. It assumed movement would be considered just as valuable as attacks. This didn't pan out but at least they tried. (WFRP2 lifted its fundamental combat framework straight from d20 and suffers from the exact same issue) 5E solve this issue, by not asking players to choose between movement and damage output. You get both. (Important: you can't convert the movement into bonus damage, which would only have brought us back to square one. The movement must be absolutely free, no strings attached!) PF2 kinda gets a pass even though it still asks you to spend an action you could have used on attacking, in order to move. The attack is penalized, many monsters sport impressive ACs, and moving feels more valuable in a game where being outnumbered or flanked gets you killed. (Meaning that if every combat were easy you wouldn't feel compelled to use movement; it's the difficulty that saves PF2). Wisely the game doesn't pile onto the already-high cost of movement by giving attacks of opportunity to every monster (to finally get back to the topic discussed...) [I]Above opinions based on extensive play experience with every game mentioned. Yes, I've really played AD&D, 3E, WFRP2, 4E, 5E, and PF2.[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification