Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4585142" data-attributes="member: 63272">Exactly.  When I say 3e encouraged static combat I don't mean it had a lack of options, I mean the design of the combat system was built around the necessity for staying in one place.  Classes depended on a lack of movement for a large chunk of their effectiveness, it was built into the system, both its need and tools present in other classes to make opponents stationary so your companions could take full round actions on them.  That style of combat was the baseline of 3e.I'm not even saying this is bad, its just the way the system was.  It worked fine.  (Although, I will note that as this isn't my style I just houseruled some changes to make it fit what I enjoy and never felt the need to come to a messageboard and rail against 3e for it <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )  My point is just that if you approach 4e combat as if it were a more static 3e combat, whether as DM or player, you are much more likely to create and experience this long grind as you are playing in a manner in which the system was not intended.  Forced movement, terrain and conditions are there to be used, not to be considered a mere side effect of a damage roll.</blockquote>