Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6012956" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I don't agree with anything you've said except this part.&nbsp; It is most certainly easier because:&quot;make a normal attack -4, hit, roll normal damage&quot;vs your Full Attack routine replete with feat synergy for enhanced to-hit, damage, and the possible triggering rider of trip, etcor your AoE save or suck spell of encounter enditude/circumventionmeansthat you'll never have to worry about improvised actions...because they don't exist in play due to the built-in, overwhelming disparity of Action Economy between improvised actions and class attack modes.&nbsp; Correct, &quot;nonexistence&quot; is much easier to adjudicate.In all seriousness, I would address the things that you wrote but I am uncertain whether you truly want to have a dialogue about the relative (i) ease of use/consistency and (ii) functionality/relevance of improvised actions, hazards (at-will and limited-use) twixt the two systems.&nbsp; If it turns out that you do, let me know.&nbsp; Perhaps you compose a scenario (battleground features, characters level/class/attack modes) and I will write it up 4e style while you write it up 3e style including our relative means of accomplishing it and the expressions of the battleground features vs characters' attack modes.&nbsp; Relative (i) ease of use/consistency and (ii) functionality/relevance of&nbsp; improvised actions, hazards (at-will and limited-use) twixt the two&nbsp; systems should be readily discernible after that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6012956, member: 6696971"] I don't agree with anything you've said except this part. It is most certainly easier because: "make a normal attack -4, hit, roll normal damage" vs your Full Attack routine replete with feat synergy for enhanced to-hit, damage, and the possible triggering rider of trip, etc or your AoE save or suck spell of encounter enditude/circumvention means that you'll never have to worry about improvised actions...because they don't exist in play due to the built-in, overwhelming disparity of Action Economy between improvised actions and class attack modes. Correct, "nonexistence" is much easier to adjudicate. In all seriousness, I would address the things that you wrote but I am uncertain whether you truly want to have a dialogue about the relative (i) ease of use/consistency and (ii) functionality/relevance of improvised actions, hazards (at-will and limited-use) twixt the two systems. If it turns out that you do, let me know. Perhaps you compose a scenario (battleground features, characters level/class/attack modes) and I will write it up 4e style while you write it up 3e style including our relative means of accomplishing it and the expressions of the battleground features vs characters' attack modes. Relative (i) ease of use/consistency and (ii) functionality/relevance of improvised actions, hazards (at-will and limited-use) twixt the two systems should be readily discernible after that. [/QUOTE]

Verification