Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 5521078" data-attributes="member: 29398">This brings up another variable: the time spent pre-planning.I could be wrong, but from what I can tell old-school combats are seen as shorter largely because the PCs plan ahead of time (either by having a series of SOPs or by planning for each individual fight) and then go in and get on with it; and the pre-planning time isn't being factored in.  In other words, we're only comparing the time spent actually rolling dice, which in 3e-4e is much longer without question.In other words: where once most of the strategizing came before the fight, now it mostly comes within it.That said, each group and-or DM has a choice: fast and swingy (and thus PC-lethal) or slow and non-swingy (and thus safer for the PCs).  4e has really gone for the non-swingy model; and though there's ways to fix that (Morrus above suggested a few) there also seems to be an unfortunate and growing sentiment that game rules are not to be messed with.Keep in mind that the example is talking about 1st-level Fighters.  1e Fighters don't get area-affecting abilities at all and so this doesn't apply; but 4e ones do (or can, I assume), thus the difference.Lan-"the best strategy always comes down to charge first, ask questions later"-efan</blockquote>