Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4584251" data-attributes="member: 63272">The mechanics of 3e encouraged static battles.  Iterative attacks depended on it.  Locking down opponents so they wouldn't move, so the melee-ists don't have to move and get to take full attacks is a basic part of the design, iterative attacks are the major class feature of a number of classes centered around the core 'fighter' role, as well as ranged attackers, who are encouraged not to move for the same reason.  The combination of the need to limit movement so you could get the extra attacks and the more devastating effects of AoOs made static combat the "proper" strategy.  Those other options you talk about don't generally lead to a lot of options as most any of them require a character built around it, and then that's about all they do.  If you want a fighter who can trip effectively, you have to build a trip-fighter, and then that is generally all he does, charge-trip-full attack-full attack-full attack.  Or charge-sunder-full attack.  It's hard to make the case that 3e encouraged movement and dynamic battle scenes.  That's not to say you couldn't have them, its a statement about how the system was built.  I didn't say "jdsivyer ran static battles in 3e".  I didn't.  I've always enjoyed dynamic fights and my players list that as one of my strengths as a DM.  Many of the houserules I used in 3e were there to make combat more dynamic.  When I read the DMG and saw 4e was built for dynamic combats, I was a very happy camper.It's the way the system was built.  The system doesn't give mechanical advantage, viable mechanical advantage, to approaching combat in this way and it mechanically encourages static combat.  Classes depend on it, other classes have the ability (spells, etc) to make sure it happens so the others can use their iterative attacks.  I had a whole set of houserules to encourage the kinds of combat I wanted to run, from XP rewards for RPing (in combat and not) and tactical brilliance to making full attack a standard action. I think this is part of the reason why I liked low level play so much in 3e.  Casters didn't rule the game and the lack of iterative attacks left the PCs free to be considerably more active.</blockquote>

Verification