Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9586086" data-attributes="member: 6790260">This and what [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] said are big parts of my motivation for "skirmish" rules. I don't think 4e erred in making combat be "this needs to be meaningful, it needs to be story-rich and engaging in its own right" type stuff. But the fact is, some of the playerbase of D&D wants those amazing action sequences to be just a Sometimes Food, a special treat at the end of the dungeon or the like. Hence, even if it were truly perfect for its purpose at release (which it definitely wasn't), it would still have left a gap between designer intent and player desire for a meaningful, vocal, and important chunk of the base. Well-constructed skirmish rules would have filled that gap, making fast-paced conflicts that could still sap resources and make confrontation a risky play, without having to turn every "three goblins in a hallway" into an EPIC CINEMATIC MASTERPIECE OF AWESOME UPHEAVAL etc. ad nauseam.I do think that when a full battle map comes out, players should expect things to get exciting and dramatic. That's good, it means combats need to really stand out. But if the system does that, it needs to have rules for violent conflicts that slowly add up to standing out, but which are individually too small to be dramatic. The death by a thousand cuts rather than a single epic clash.</blockquote>